Supreme Court Grants Pensionary Benefits to Women Air Force Officers: Wg Cdr A U Tayyaba (Retd) vs. Union of India (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 16 November 2022

Citation: Not Available in the source

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Hima Kohli, J, and J B Pardiwala, J.

Can women officers who were released from service before a landmark judgment, but were promised a Permanent Commission (PC), be denied benefits just because they didn’t file a separate case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the rights of women officers in the Indian Air Force (IAF). This case revolves around whether women officers who were not part of the original litigation, but were similarly situated, should also receive the benefits of the judgment. The court considered the principles of legitimate expectation and gender equality.

Case Background

The appellants, women officers, joined the IAF as Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCOs) between 1993 and 1998. They were initially promised a PC after five years, subject to suitability and vacancies, as per a circular dated 25 November 1991. The IAF also advertised these positions, highlighting the possibility of a PC after the initial five-year term. However, after completing five years of service, the women officers were only offered extensions of their SSC, while male officers were considered for PC. In 2003, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Babita Puniya, highlighting gender discrimination against women officers in the armed forces. The appellants were not part of this litigation. In 2004, a policy was issued stating that PC would not be offered to women SSCOs. By 2006, the policy was changed to discontinue PC for all SSCOs, regardless of gender. Some of the appellants received a second extension of their SSC, while others were released due to not meeting the required performance standards. In 2008, the government decided to offer PC prospectively to women officers in select branches.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Delhi High Court, in its judgment in Babita Puniya’s case dated 12 March 2010, directed that women SSCOs who had opted for PC but were not granted it, should be considered for PC at par with male SSCOs. This benefit was limited to women officers in service or those who had approached the court by filing petitions and had retired during the pendency of the petitions. The Indian Air Force (IAF) implemented this judgment for those who were in service on 12 March 2010, or those who had filed writ petitions before their release. The appellants were excluded because they had been released before 12 March 2010 and had not filed individual writ petitions. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellants’ petitions on 11 August 2011, stating that the benefit of the Babita Puniya judgment was limited to those in service or those who had approached the court. The High Court also noted that extending the benefit to all women officers would require recalling the directions, as PC was subject to suitability and vacancies.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the directions issued by the Delhi High Court in Babita Puniya’s case, particularly paragraphs 61(3) and 61(4). The High Court’s decision was based on the principles of gender equality under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The initial policy circular of the IAF dated 25 November 1991, and subsequent advertisements, had created an expectation that women SSCOs would be considered for PC after five years of service.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that while they were not parties to the Babita Puniya case, they should be covered under paragraph 61(4) of the judgment, which they claimed was an additional category beyond paragraph 61(3).
• They contended that they had a legitimate expectation, based on the 1991 policy circular and advertisements, that they would be considered for PC after five years of service.
• They argued that their cases should have been considered under the Human Resources Policy (HRP) of the IAF dated 19 November 2010.
• The appellants submitted that the Qualitative Ratings (QRs) applied to them were assessed casually since they were not eligible for PC at the relevant time.
• They requested that if reinstatement was not possible, they should be granted pensionary benefits under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, as per the Supreme Court’s decision in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that the appellants were not covered by the Babita Puniya judgment because they were not serving in the IAF on 12 March 2010, nor had they approached the High Court while in service.
• They stated that the IAF had complied with the Babita Puniya judgment by considering 44 women SSCOs, of whom 41 were granted PC.
• They noted that the Supreme Court had directed the IAF to consider the appellants for reinstatement, subject to meeting the 2007 QRs. Some were reinstated, while others were not found suitable or were unwilling.
• They stated that there was no discrimination between men and women in applying QR requirements.
• The respondents submitted that the uniform QR requirement of 6.5 was applied across the board to both men and women SSCOs.

The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of paragraphs 61(3) and 61(4) of the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Babita Puniya. The appellants contended that paragraph 61(4) created an additional category of beneficiaries, while the respondents argued it was merely clarificatory. The appellants also relied heavily on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, arguing that the initial promises of PC created a reasonable expectation that they would be considered for it.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for determination:

1. Whether the appellants, who were not parties to the original proceedings in Babita Puniya, are entitled to the same benefits as those who were, specifically concerning the grant of PC and pensionary benefits.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Babita Puniya v. Secretary & Anr, (2010) 168 DLT 115 (DB) – Delhi High Court: This case was the basis of the dispute, where the High Court ordered consideration of PC for women SSCOs.
• Secretary, Ministry of Defence versus Babita Puniya and Others, (2020) 7 SCC 469 – Supreme Court of India: This case was an appeal against the Delhi High Court’s decision, where the Supreme Court clarified the benefits to be granted to women officers.
• State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 968 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited for the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
• Lt. Col. Nitisha and Others v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 261 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited for invoking Article 142 to grant benefits to women officers.
• Union of India v. Lt. Cd. Annie Nagaraja, (2020) 13 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited for invoking Article 142 to grant benefits to women officers.

Legal Provisions:

• Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India: These articles were cited in the Delhi High Court’s judgment for ensuring gender equality and protection of life and personal liberty.
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: This article was invoked by the Supreme Court to grant pensionary benefits to the appellants.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Babita Puniya v. Secretary & Anr, (2010) 168 DLT 115 (DB) – The Court interpreted the directions of the Delhi High Court, clarifying that the benefits were intended for those in service or who had approached the court, but recognized the underlying principle of gender equality and legitimate expectation.
• Secretary, Ministry of Defence versus Babita Puniya and Others, (2020) 7 SCC 469 – The Supreme Court’s previous decision was used as a basis for granting pensionary benefits under Article 142, emphasizing the need to address gender discrimination.
• State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 968 – The Court relied on this case to define the doctrine of legitimate expectation, highlighting the importance of fairness and transparency in government dealings.
• Lt. Col. Nitisha and Others v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 261 and Union of India v. Lt. Cd. Annie Nagaraja, (2020) 13 SCC 1 – These cases were used to justify the use of Article 142 to grant pensionary benefits to women officers, emphasizing the need to do complete justice.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of gender equality, legitimate expectation, and the need to do complete justice. The Court recognized that while the appellants were not covered by the strict wording of the Babita Puniya judgment, they were similarly situated and had a legitimate expectation of being considered for PC. The Court also noted that the denial of PC to women officers was a form of gender discrimination that needed to be rectified. The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to ensure that these officers received pensionary benefits.

The Court’s reasoning was structured around the following points:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as strictly adhering to the letter of the Babita Puniya judgment, but rejected them in favor of a more equitable approach. The Court emphasized that the denial of benefits to the appellants would perpetuate gender discrimination and violate the principles of fairness.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The appellants had a legitimate expectation of being considered for PC.
• The denial of PC was a form of gender discrimination.
• The appellants were similarly situated to those who benefited from the Babita Puniya judgment.
• The Court had the power under Article 142 to do complete justice.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“In matters of gender discrimination a greater sensitivity is expected and required.”

“The state must discard the colonial notion that it is a sovereign handing out doles at its will. Its policies give rise to legitimate expectations that the state will act according to what it puts forth in the public realm.”

“The officers shall be considered for the grant of PC on the basis of the HRP dated 19 November 2010.”

There was no minority opinion in this judgment.

Key Takeaways

• Women officers who were promised a PC but were not part of the original litigation are still entitled to benefits.
• The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a powerful tool for ensuring fairness in government dealings.
• The Supreme Court will use Article 142 to address gender discrimination and ensure complete justice.
• This judgment sets a precedent for considering the rights of similarly situated individuals who were not part of the original litigation.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. All women SSCOs in this batch of cases will be considered for one-time pensionary benefits, assuming they have completed the minimum qualifying service for pension.
2. The cases will be evaluated based on the HRP dated 19 November 2010, specifically Part No 5.
3. Eligible officers will receive pension arrears from the date they are deemed to have completed twenty years of service, but no arrears of salary.
4. The Court clarified that petitions filed after a considerable delay were dismissed.
5. Three officers with QRs between 6.29 and 6.41 will have their cases considered sympathetically.

Specific Amendments Analysis

No specific amendments were discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that even if women officers were not part of the original litigation, they are entitled to pensionary benefits if they had a legitimate expectation of being considered for PC and were subjected to gender discrimination. This case reinforces the importance of legitimate expectation and the Supreme Court’s willingness to use Article 142 to ensure justice. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it clarifies the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Wg Cdr A U Tayyaba (Retd) vs. Union of India provides significant relief to women officers of the Indian Air Force who were denied PC despite having a legitimate expectation. The Court, while acknowledging that the appellants were not covered by the specific directions in the Babita Puniya judgment, granted them pensionary benefits under Article 142, emphasizing the need to address gender discrimination and ensure complete justice. This decision highlights the importance of fairness, transparency, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation in government dealings.

Category

• Service Law
  • Armed Forces
  • Pensionary Benefits
  • Permanent Commission
  • Short Service Commission
• Constitution of India
  • Article 14, Constitution of India
  • Article 16, Constitution of India
  • Article 21, Constitution of India
  • Article 142, Constitution of India
• Gender Discrimination
  • Women Officers Rights
  • Gender Equality

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in this case?

A: The main issue was whether women officers of the Indian Air Force, who were not part of the original Babita Puniya litigation, were entitled to the same benefits, specifically concerning pensionary benefits and Permanent Commission.

Q: What is the doctrine of legitimate expectation?

A: The doctrine of legitimate expectation means that if a government authority makes a promise or representation, either explicitly or implicitly, it creates a reasonable expectation that the authority will act accordingly. In this case, the promise of a Permanent Commission created such an expectation.

Q: What is Article 142 of the Constitution of India?

A: Article 142 grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in any case. In this case, the Supreme Court used this power to grant pensionary benefits to the women officers.

Q: What are the practical implications of this judgment?

A: This judgment means that women officers who were promised a Permanent Commission but were not part of the original litigation are still entitled to pensionary benefits. It also reinforces the importance of government authorities acting fairly and transparently.

Q: How does this case impact future cases?

A: This case sets a precedent for considering the rights of similarly situated individuals who were not part of the original litigation. It also reinforces the Supreme Court’s commitment to addressing gender discrimination and ensuring complete justice.