WG CDR A U TAYYABA (RETD) AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 800 · Decided: 16-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
   [2022] 8 S.C.R. 800
800
WG CDR A U TAYYABA (RETD) AND OTHERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos 79-82 of 2012 )
November 16, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
HIMA KOHLI AND J B PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Armed Forces: Permanent Commission – Claim for, by Women
Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCO) – The Delhi High Court
in its lead judgment in *Babita Puniya v. Secretary & Anr, issued
specific directions for considering Women SSCO in the Air Force
and in the Army for the grant of Permanent Commission (PC) –
Indian Air Force implemented the said judgment only for those
officers who were in service as on 12 March 2010 or those retired/
released officers who were not in service as on 12 March 2010 but
had filed writ petitions before their release – Appellants were left
out from the reinstatement plan of IAF as they were released from
service prior to 12 March 2010 – Appellants unsuccessfully
challenged the manner of implementation of decision in *Babita
Puniya v. Secretary & Anr. – On appeal, Held: Para 61(3) of the
judgment of the Delhi High Court provided that Women SSCOs of
the IAF who had opted for PC but were not granted PC but allowed
only an extension of their Short Service Commissions were entitled
to PC at par with men SSCOs with all consequential benefits – It
covers only two categories (i) Serving women SSCOs as on the date
of the judgment (ii) Women SSCOs who had instituted writ petitions
before the High Court but who had retired during the course of the
pendency of the petitions – Hence, submission of appellants of
including them in reinstatement plan of IAF cannot be accepted as
they did not fall into any of the above two categories – However, as
a matter of fact entire litigation was pursued in the form of a PIL –
Appellants had a legitimate expectation since the respondents by
their representations in the policy circular dated 25 November 1991
and in published advertisements created expectations among the
women SSCOs regarding the grant of PC on completion of five years
of service – The women SSCOs continued to be under a legitimate
expectation that their extended SSC tenure would be converted into
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
801
a PC as they were induced in service with a specific representation
of being considered for PC – Hence, appellants should be considered
for the grant of pensionary benefits as the reinstatement in service
is not a viable option having regard to the exigencies of service –
This direction emanate in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court
u/Art.142 of the Constitution of India to bring about complete and
substantial justice and remove the pernicious effects of gender
discrimination which had taken place in the past in the Indian Air
Force – Directions passed – Legitimate expectation – Constitution
of India – Art.142.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Paragraph 61(3) of the judgment of the Delhi
High Court provided that women SSCOs of the IAF who had opted
for PC but were not granted PC but allowed only an extension of
their Short Service Commissions were entitled to PC at par with
men SSCOs with all consequential benefits. PC was to be offered
to them after the completion of five years. This will cover
consequential benefits including promotion and other financial
benefits. However, the benefits were to be made available only
to those women officers who were in service and to those who
had approached the High Court by filing petitions though they
had retired during the course of the pendency of the petitions.
The directions of the Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 12
March 2010 envisaged that the benefits were to be made available
to those “women officers in service who had instituted
proceedings before the High Court and had retired during the
pendency of the writ petitions”, and that by virtue of direction
(iv), it was envisaged that those women officers who had not
attained the age of superannuation for PC officers would be
reinstated with all consequential benefits. Hence, it is not possible
to accept the wider submission which has been urged on behalf
of the appellants that they were expressly covered by para 61 of
the Delhi High Court decision. [Paras 20, 25, 26][815-C-D; 816-
G-H; 817-A-D]
2. The entire litigation initially was pursued in the form of a
PIL which was moved by an advocate. During the pendency of
the proceedings, officers of the Air Force and the Army joined in
WG CDR A U TAYYABA

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