Case Name -LT. COL. SUPRITA CHANDEL V . UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case Number – CIVIL APPEAL No. 1943 of 2022
Date – December 9 , 2024
Quorum – Justice B.R Gavai and Justice K.V Viishwanathan
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant was commissioned in a Short Service Commissioned Officer back in 2008 in the Army Dental Corps . She was interested in giving departmental exam to get promoted in permanent commissioned . As per regulations She has three chances to get selected for Permanent commissioned with the extension of the age limit . She gave the exams twice but was not able to qualify in that two chance .On 15th November 2012, her services were increased for more five years. By 9th of March 2013 the appellant had completed five years of service and was eligible to avail of her third chance.
But in 2013 an amendment came and deleted the provison which gave the eligibility criteria after completion 5 years of service . This proviosn deprived of her third chance since the extension was limited at 35years and who are in receipt of Post Graduate Qualification of Master In Dental Surgery .
Due to this officers situated in same postion were also not given an opportunity to appear for the test . They moved an application to AFT raising Various contentions and said that they have been wrongly deprived of availing the third chance .
AFT upheld the policy and granted relief .
She was not able to join the applicants litigation as she was in the advance stage of pregnancy due to which she took maternity leave so she was excluded from the benefits .She was not considered because she was not part of the original application . She again filed the fresh in AFT Lucknow Bench ,but here also her relief was rejected.
LEGAL ISSUE
1.Whether the appellant entiled to relief even though not part of the earlier litigation?
- Whether depriving of relief to the appellant constitute discrimination?
LEGAL PROVISION
SECTION 37of the Army Act 1950
It states -Mutiny
SECTION 38 OF the Army Act 1950
It states- Desertion and aiding desertion.
Article 142- It is discretionary power .It empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice
ARGUMENT
BY APPELLANT
Depriving her from permanent commission was discriminatory because other officers with her was granted benefit but she was denied .She argued that her exclusion has violated principles of fairness and equality as ealier she was entitled for three attempts to get promoted in permanent commissioned but 2013 amendment curtailed her chance to get permanent commissioned
BY RESPONDENT
Respondent argued that appellant was not entitle for to get in permanent commission as she was not a part of original case before the AFT. So the benefits gtranted in the case cannot apply to non-litigants. Respondents also claim that appellant failed to seek relief which shows lack of effort.
JUDGMENT
Here Apex Court invoked Article 142 of the constitution to ensure the complete justice and said-Appellant shal be granted a permanent commission from the same date as AFT gave the judgment and she will be entitle to receive all consequential benefits including all promotion , arrears etc
CONCLUSION
The latest Supreme Court decision and the ongoing legal evolution concerning permanent commissions for women in the armed forces gives remarkable steps towards gender equality and inclusivity. However, the fight to eliminate this discrimination and ensure equal opportunity for all is an ongoing effort . Therefore we must move forward and the government and armed services must implement substantial changes, ignore outdated practices, and develop a culture of diversity and respect among military personnel. Only through concerted effort and steadfast devotion will we be able to fully realise the ideal of equality and justice for women in the Indian armed forces.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY Abhijeet Kumar
