LT. COL. SUPRITA CHANDEL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 381 · Decided: 09-12-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 381 : 2024 INSC 942
Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel 
v. 
Union of India and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 2022)
09 December 2024
[B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the 
Armed Forces Tribunal, dismissing the application of the Appellant 
seeking relief of Permanent Commissioning, granted by the AFT, 
Principal Bench to the applicants therein, who were identically 
situated officers.
Headnotes†
Armed Forces – Permanent Commissioning – Benefit of – 
Extension of benefit to similarly situated persons – Appellant-
Short Commissioned Officer in Army Dental Crops, denied 
third opportunity for permanent Commission in view of 
amendment in 2013 – However, the Principle Bench of the 
AFT holding that the applicants (identically situated officers) 
were denied the third chance directed consideration of their 
cases for permanent absorption by granting one-time age 
relaxation by considering them under the unamended policy – 
Appellant not considered because she was not part of the 
application – Appellant filed Original Application before the 
AFT, Regional Bench seeking the relief granted to the batch 
of similarly situated ones by AFT, Principal Bench, which 
attained finality– Said application dismissed – Correctness:
Held: Where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government 
department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of 
law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended 
the benefit without the need for them to go to court – No doubt, 
in exceptional cases where the court has expressly prohibited the 
extension of the benefit to those who have not approached the court 
till then or in cases where a grievance in personam is redressed, 
the matter may acquire a different dimension, and the department 
may be justified in denying the relief to an individual who claims 
* Author
382
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the extension of the benefit of the said judgment – While the AFT 
Principal Bench granted relief to the applicants, it did not prohibit 
the department from considering similarly situated persons – 
Appellant is entitled to parity with those applicants who succeeded 
before the AFT, Principal Bench – Union of India not been able 
to point out any valid justification as to how the applicants who 
obtained the benefit from the AFT, Principal Bench and batch are 
not identically situated with the Appellant – Accepting the stand of 
the Union of India would result in this Court putting its imprimatur 
on an unreasonable stand adopted by the authorities  – If the 
applicants who are identically situated to the appellant were found 
to be eligible to be given a third chance for promotion, because 
they acquired eligibility before the amendment, no reason why the 
appellant should not be treated alike – No delay in the appellant 
approaching the tribunal – Appellant wrongly excluded from 
consideration when other similarly situated officers were considered 
and granted permanent commission – Since nothing adverse placed 
on record with regard to performance of the Appellant, in exercise 
of powers u/Art. 142 of the Constitution, the Appellant ought to be 
given Permanent Commission – Appellant’s case be taken up for 
grant of Permanent Commission and be extended the benefit of 
Permanent Commission along with the all consequential benefits 
with effect from the same date the similarly situated persons who 
obtained benefits pursuant to the judgment of the AFT, Principal 
Bench – Order of the AFT, Regional Bench quashed and set 
aside – Constitution of India – Art. 142. [Paras 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 
18, 19, 21, 23-25]
Case Law Cited
Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others 
[1975] 2 SCR 960 : (1975) 4 SCC 714; K.I. Shephard and Others v. 
Union of India and Others [1988] 1 SCR 188 : (1987) 4 SCC 431; 
State of Maharashtra and Another v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni 
and Others [1982] 1 SCR 665 : (1981) 4 SCC 130 – referred to.
List of Keywords
Armed Forces Tribunal; Permanent Commissioning; Identically 
situated officers; Extension of benefit to similarly situated persons; 
Short Commissioned Officer; Army Dental Crops; Third opportunity 
for permanent Commission; Permanent absorption; One-time age 
relaxation; Delay; Non-suited.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
383
Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDI

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.