Wg Cdr Sucheta Edn vs Union Of India - Permanent Commission for SSCWOs
Summary
The Supreme Court of India issued a judgment concerning the grant of Permanent Commission (PC) to Short Service Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs) in the Indian Air Force. The appeals challenge previous decisions by the Armed Forces Tribunal and the High Court of Delhi that denied PC based on performance and merit assessments.
What changed
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Wg Cdr Sucheta Edn vs Union Of India, has ruled on the eligibility of Short Service Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs) in the Indian Air Force for Permanent Commission (PC). The judgment addresses appeals from six SSCWOs who were denied PC after multiple selection processes, challenging the assessment of their performance, eligibility, and comparative merit. The Court has condoned delays and granted leave to appeal, indicating a substantive review of the prior decisions made by the Armed Forces Tribunal and the High Court of Delhi.
This ruling has significant implications for military personnel policies regarding career progression and equal opportunity. Compliance officers within defense organizations, particularly the Indian Air Force, should review the full judgment to understand the criteria for PC assessment and potential remedies for officers who believe their evaluations were flawed. While no specific compliance deadline is mentioned, the judgment implies a need to re-evaluate past decisions and potentially implement revised assessment protocols to ensure fair treatment and adherence to merit-based progression for all officers.
What to do next
- Review the Supreme Court's judgment on SSCWO Permanent Commission eligibility.
- Assess current performance and merit assessment criteria for military personnel.
- Identify any officers potentially affected by previous adverse decisions.
Source document (simplified)
## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI
Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions
- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 3, Cited by 0 ] ### Supreme Court of India
Wg Cdr Sucheta Edn vs Union Of India on 24 March, 2026
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
2026 INSC 280 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. ___________ / 2026
(Arising out of Diary No. 28412 / 2024)
Wg. Cdr. Sucheta EDN …Appellant(s)
versus
Union of India and others …Respondent(s)
with
Civil Appeal No. ___________ / 2026
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16548/2024)
Civil Appeal No. ___________ / 2026
(Arising out of Diary No. 28420 / 2024)
Civil Appeal No. ___________ / 2026
(Arising out of Diary No. 28428 / 2024)
Civil Appeal No. ___________ / 2026
(Arising out of Diary No. 28432 / 2024)
Civil Appeal No. ___________ / 2026
(Arising out of Diary No. 47092 / 2024)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2026.03.24
11:47:57 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 34
JUDGEMENT
SURYA KANT, CJI.
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
Applications for intervention are allowed, and the Applicants therein are
directed to be impleaded as Intervenors.
The instant batch of appeals has been instituted by 6 Short Service
Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs) in the Indian Air Force, seeking
the grant of Permanent Commission (PC) after being denied such relief
through successive selection processes. At stake is the manner in which
performance, eligibility, and merit were assessed for all Short Service
Commission Officers (SSCOs) after years of service on a time-bound
commission.
The Appellant-SSCWOs approached the Armed Forces Tribunal,
Principal Bench at New Delhi (AFT) as well as the High Court of Delhi
(High Court), seeking redressal after being denied the grant of PC on
three separate occasions. The AFT, vide its judgement dated 26.09.2023,
and the High Court, vide its judgement dated 19.02.2024 (Impugned
Judgements), dismissed their Original Applications (OAs) and Writ
Petition on the ground that the Appellants either failed to meet the
Minimum Performance Criteria or that they were placed low in the order
of comparative merit.
Page 2 of 34A. FACTS
- The catalyst giving rise to these cases is an extended policy embargo on
the grant of PC to all SSCOs commissioned after 25.05.2006 in the Air
Force. This embargo was lifted suddenly, in the final years of their
tenure, so that all the SSCOs commissioned after 25.05.2006 could be
afforded an opportunity to compete for PC under a newly-introduced
framework. In order to appreciate the issues that fall for our
determination, it is necessary to trace the relevant factual and
institutional developments leading to the initiation of these appeals.
5.1. The Air Force is broadly organised into two principal branches, i.e. the
Flying Branch and the Ground Duty Branch, each comprising multiple
specialised streams. As in the Army and the Navy, commissioned service
in the Air Force is of two kinds, namely, PC and Short Service
Commission (SSC). The SSC Scheme was conceived as a short-term
mechanism to induct SSCOs for a limited tenure, primarily to address
officer shortages at the junior levels. The first SSC entry was introduced
in 1985 only for men in the Technical Ground Duty Branch [Aeronautical
Engineering (AE)], followed by the induction of male SSCOs into 6
streams of the Flying Branch in 1990.
5.2. The Government of India decided, in 1992, to open certain
branches/streams of the Air Force to women on an experimental basis,
in order to “assess their effective utilisation”. Women were accordingly
inducted into the Air Force for the first time in 1993, initially for a tenure
of 5 years. During this period, male SSCOs were also inducted into
Page 3 of 34
additional Ground Duty branches/streams. Under the prevailing
induction schemes, such officers were to be considered for the grant of
PC upon completion of their initial tenure. Initially, SSCWOs were
commissioned only in the Administration, Education, and AE
branches/streams, but in subsequent years, SSC entry for women was
extended to all streams of the Flying Branch, except for the Fighter
stream, which was opened to women only in 2015.
5.3. In 1998, the tenure of SSCWOs was extended by an additional 5 years,
thereby deferring their pending consideration for the grant of PC. Prior
to 2001, SSC Schemes were governed by differing terms and conditions,
depending on the respective branch/stream, resulting in tenure
structures such as ‘5 + 6 + 4’ years and ‘6 + 5 + 4’ years.
5.4. Following a comprehensive review of the prevailing SSC Schemes, these
disparate schemes were consolidated under a ‘Rationalised SSC Scheme
with Uniform Terms and Conditions of Service’ (Rationalised Scheme),
which came to be implemented with effect from 23.04.2001. The
Rationalised Scheme stipulated a term of ‘10 + 5’ years for SSCOs in both
the Flying and Ground Duty Branches. This framework was
subsequently amended in 2005 and 2007, whereby the tenure for SSCOs
in the Ground Duty Branch was revised to ‘10 + 4’ years, while that for
the Flying Branch was fixed at 14 years, with no provision for further
extension. This Rationalised Scheme, as amended, continues to govern
SSC tenure.
Page 4 of 34
5.5. In the aftermath of the Kargil War, the Government of India constituted
the Ajay Vikram Singh Committee to undertake cadre restructuring of
the Armed Forces. As part of a cadre management exercise, the Air Force
issued Human Resource Policy (HRP) 21/2006 dated 25.05.2006, which
purported to suspend the grant of PC to all SSCOs inducted after that
date, irrespective of gender. Prior to this policy, only male SSCOs had
been offered and considered eligible for PC.
5.6. Meanwhile, several SSCWOs of the Army and the Air Force approached
the High Court seeking the grant of PC. The SSCWOs in the Air Force
contended that they were not considered for PC, notwithstanding that
the induction advertisements indicated that PC would be offered to
willing officers subject to suitability. Furthermore, their male
counterparts had been considered for the same. Subsequently, by its
judgement dated 12.03.2010 in Babita Puniya v. Secretary,1 the High
Court ruled that SSCWOs in the Air Force could not be denied PC on the
ground that their induction was merely experimental. It was accordingly
held that SSCWOs who had opted for PC but were instead granted
extension were entitled to PC at par with their male counterparts.
However, these benefits were confined to SSCWOs recruited prior to
25.05.2006.
5.7. In order to implement the judgement dated 12.03.2010 and to lay down
guidelines governing the grant of PC and extension to SSCWOs, the Air
Force formulated HRP 04/2010. This policy prescribed certain
1 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1116.
Page 5 of 34
Qualitative Requirements (QRs) as eligibility criteria in order to be
considered for PC by the Board. These QRs included: (i) A minimum
average grading of 6.5 on the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) [also
known as, Appraisal Reports (ARs)] for the preceding 3 years; (ii) A
minimum grading of 6 in the ACRs under consideration in each of the
professional and behavioural factors listed; and (iii) Medical category of
A2G2(P/T)/A4G2(P/T) or above. Pursuant to this framework, in 2010,
PC was granted to 42 willing SSCWOs, who satisfied the prescribed
criteria.
5.8. Thereafter, 13 male SSCOs of the Air Force approached the AFT,
aggrieved by the continued suspension of the grant of PC, despite their
women counterparts being considered for the same pursuant to the
judgement dated 12.03.2010. The AFT delivered its decision dated
22.02.2011 in Sqn. Ldr. Lalit Kumar Tandon and Ors. v. Union of
India and Ors.,2 allowing the petitions and holding that all SSCOs
commissioned prior to 25.05.2006 were entitled to equal consideration
for PC.
5.9. With a view to implement the aforesaid decision, as well as to ensure
continued compliance with the judgement dated 12.03.2010, the Air
Force issued HRP 03/2011, providing for consideration for PC to all
SSCOs of the Ground Duty Branch commissioned prior to 25.05.2006,
irrespective of gender. HRP 03/2011 stipulated that the grant of PC
would depend on: (i) Written willingness of the officer to be considered
2 2011 SCCOnLine AFT 191.
Page 6 of 34
for the grant of PC; (ii) Suitability on the basis of QRs, medical category,
and disciplinary and vigilance clearances; (iii) Availability of vacancies
in their respective branches; (iv) Position in merit; and (v) The decision
of the Board of Officers (BoO) constituted for this purpose. The QRs laid
down were similar to those of the earlier stated policy, with some
variations owing to the date of induction and the course governing
induction. Pursuant to HRP 03/2011, between 2011 and 2015, 71 male
SSCOs and 294 SSCWOs were granted PC.
5.10. The Appellant-SSCWOs were commissioned into various
branches/streams of the Air Force in 2007. Merely a year later, by a letter
dated 26.09.2008, the Ministry of Defence conveyed the President’s
sanction to offer PC prospectively to the SSCWOs to be inducted in Judge
Advocate General (JAG) Department and Army Education Corps (AEC)
of the Army and their corresponding branch/cadre in the Navy and Air
Force, Accounts Branch of the Air Force, and Naval Constructor of the
Navy, in addition to the existing provisions for grant of PC to male SSCOs.
5.11. This was followed by a communication dated 11.11.2011 issued by the
Ministry of Defence, regarding the policy on induction and employment
of women in the Armed Forces. It conveyed the sanction for consideration
of SSCWOs for the grant of PC, along with the male SSCOs, in the
branches as specified in the letter dated 26.09.2008. In addition, in the
Air Force, SSCWOs would be eligible for consideration for PC in the
Technical, Administration, Logistics, and Meteorology branches. At the
same time, it was emphasised that uniform QRs would apply to male and
Page 7 of 34
female SSCOs, and that the grant of PC would remain subject to service
requirements, vacancies, suitability, merit, and willingness as decided by
each service. Notwithstanding the above-mentioned communications,
the Air Force stood firm on HRP 21/2006 and declined to consider any
SSCOs commissioned after 25.05.2006 for the grant of PC.
5.12. However, a significant shift occurred in 2018 and 2019, when the Air
Force undertook a further revision of its PC policy. By virtue of HRP
06/2018 and HRP 01/2019, all SSCOs of the Flying Branch and the
Ground Duty Branch (excluding medical and dental officers),
respectively, were entitled to be considered for PC. HRP 01/2019, in
particular, was introduced with a view to address the aspirations of
SSCOs commissioned after 25.05.2006 in all the Ground Duty branches,
who had earlier been excluded due to the suspension effected by
HRP 21/2006.
5.13. It was specified that all serving SSCOs, commissioned after 25.05.2006,
would be eligible for consideration for the grant of PC in the last three
years of their service, subject to the conditions laid down in HRP
01/2019. The policy expressly clarified that mere eligibility for
consideration would not automatically translate into the grant of PC.
5.14. Under this framework, each SSCO was to be considered thrice, upon
completion of their 11th, 12th, and 13th years of SSC tenure. Such
consideration was subject to: (i) Service requirement; (ii) Cadre vacancy;
(iii) Willingness of the SSCO; (iv) Suitability of the SSCO on the basis of
Page 8 of 34
the QRs/medical category laid down in this HRP; (v) Position of the SSCO
in the order of merit; (vi) Recommendation by the BoO duly constituted
for the purpose; and (vii) Grant of approval by the Competent Authority.
Appendix A of this policy laid down the ‘Minimum Performance Criteria
for Consideration,’ also known as the QRs. It is elaborated as follows:
“2. Assessment Criteria
(a) No. of ARs: ARs covering a period of last five years
preceding the BoO would be considered for grant of PC.
(b) Minimum AR Aggregate: SSCOs should have
minimum average of 7.00 in the last five years
available ARs (AR avg is not to be rounded off).
(c) Mandatory Qualities: A minimum grading of 6.00 (in
ARs under consideration) in Mandatory Qualities
(MQs) in the ARs under consideration as listed in AFO
06 of 2012 on “Appraisal Report: IAF Officers” for Sqn.
Ldrs. and Wg. Cdrs. and as amended from time to time.
In case, the grading is below 6.00 in any MQ, the
officer would become ineligible for consideration for
grant of PC.
3. Mandatory In-Service Courses (MISC): The officer
should have scored a minimum average CGPA of 6.00 in the
applicable MISCs (BASCO, BPKC, ISCO, & APKC).
4. Categorisation: For being considered by the BoO, the
officer should hold a valid Category of at least Cat ‘C’.
5. Medical Category: Current medical category at the time
of consideration required for grant of PC would be as
follows:-
(a) A4G2(P/T) or higher.
(b) A serving SSCO in temporary low medical category
below A4D2, who in all likelihood is expected to
regain his/her medical category in accordance with
the opinion of DGMS (Air), would be considered in the
BoO. In such a case, if he/she is selected for grant of
PC, he/she would require to upgrade his/her medical
category to A4G2(P/T) or higher for grant of PC by the
end of SSC tenure. In case of failure to regain requisite
medical category by the end of SSC tenure, the officer
would be released from service on completion of the
SSC tenure.”
[Sic]
Page 9 of 34
5.15. Further, Appendix C prescribed the method of preparation of the merit
list, allocating marks primarily on the basis of AR aggregates, with
limited weightage for in-service courses, categorisation, and honours.
The marks were apportioned in the following manner:
“S. No. Factors Max Marks
(a) AR Aggregate {5 ARs x 18 (9+9)} 90.00
(b) CGPA of Mandatory In-Service Courses 2.00
(BASCO, BPKC, ISCO, & APKC)
(c) Categorisation/Professional Courses 2.00
(d) Decorations/Awards/Commendations 3.00
Total 97”
5.16. Pursuant to the release of this policy, a Board was convened in March
2019. Although all the Appellant-SSCWOs submitted their willingness to
be considered for PC, some of them were not considered owing to their
failure to meet the Minimum Performance Criteria. Thereafter, upon
improving their eligibility parameters, they were considered in the 2020
and 2021 Boards but were not granted PC due to the limited number of
vacancies and lower comparative merit. They were subsequently released
from service following the declaration of the results of the 2021 Board
on 24.05.2021.
5.17. The aggrieved Appellants in Diary Nos. 28412, 28420, 28428, 28432,
and 47092 of 2024 filed their Original Applications (OAs) before the AFT,
seeking, inter alia: (i) to set aside HRP 01/2019 to the extent of its alleged
arbitrariness; (ii) to direct the Respondents to grant PC to the Applicants;
Page 10 of 34
and (iii) to direct the Respondents to produce signals/documents related
to the declassification of vacancies with respect to the SSCOs for the
Boards of 2019, 2020, and 2021. Besides this, they sought an interim
stay on their release from service. However, such interim relief was denied
by the AFT on 04.06.2021 and subsequently by the High Court
on 11.06.2021.
5.18. The AFT, vide its Impugned Judgement dated 26.09.2023, dismissed the
OAs as bereft of any merit, holding that the Appellants, having
participated in the process with knowledge of the governing HRP, could
not subsequently challenge its terms. Furthermore, the Appellants were
denied PC on account of their failure to meet the Minimum Performance
Criteria or low placement in the order of comparative merit.
5.19. The remaining Appellant, i.e. the Petitioner in SLP (C) No. 16548/2024,
was commissioned in January 2007 and was proposed to be released
from service on 01.01.2021, i.e. prior to the Selection Board of 2021. She
was not considered by the 2019 Board as she did not meet the Minimum
Performance Criteria and was not granted PC in the 2020 Board owing
to inter se low merit. Challenging the fairness of HRP 01/2019 and
submitting that her right to be considered thrice under the policy would
be taken away if she were discharged in January 2021, she approached
the AFT. The AFT, on 16.03.2021, declined to interfere with the policy
merely because it applied harshly to the Appellant, but permitted her to
continue in service till she was considered a third time by the Selection
Board. When the Appellant was not granted PC in the 2021 Board, she
Page 11 of 34
approached the High Court by way of a Writ Petition, challenging the
AFT’s order dated 16.03.2021 and claiming that she ought to have been
considered as per the eligibility conditions laid down in HRP 21/2006.
Vide the Impugned Judgement dated 19.02.2024, the High Court has
dismissed her challenge on the ground that the assessment undertaken
by the Boards in 2020 and 2021 had not been assailed.
5.20. What emerges is that some of the Appellant-SSCWOs before us have been
held ineligible for PC owing to their failure to meet the Minimum
Performance Criteria in at least one Board and being classified as low in
comparative merit in successive Boards, while others have been denied
PC because of their low comparative merit in all three Boards. It is
against this factual and procedural backdrop that the instant appeals
have been instituted.
5.21. It may also be noticed that three SSCWOs who were commissioned in
2011, have assailed the Boards conducted in 2023, 2024, and 2025,
owing to which they were not granted PC. Such a challenge has been
made, at this stage, by filing applications for impleadment and directions
in the Civil Appeal arising out of Diary No. 28412/2024. This Court has,
during the pendency of these applications, passed interlocutory orders
permitting the Intervenor-SSCWOs to continue in service.
B. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, learned Senior Counsel and Ms. Garima
Sachdeva, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellants,
Page 12 of 34assailed the Impugned Judgements and mounted a substantive
challenge to the fairness and method of implementation of HRP 01/2019.
They advanced the following submissions:
(a) HRP 01/2019 was implemented impulsively, in undue haste,
depriving several meritorious and otherwise qualified SSCOs of a
reasonable gestation period to prepare for the Board and to meet the
newly-prescribed Minimum Performance Criteria. Although the
policy contemplated that the Board would ordinarily be convened in
May each year, the first Board in 2019 was held in March, barely
one and a half months after the policy came into force. This stood
in stark contrast to the extended transition period afforded under
the revised Promotion Policy from Wing Commander to Group
Captain, which was implemented only after sufficient advance
notice.
(b) Furthermore, the Appellant in Diary No. 28412/2024 and the
Intervenor in I.A. No. 127999/2025 were on maternity leave
immediately prior to or during the 2019 Board proceedings. Their
most recent ACRs, therefore, reflected comparatively lower gradings,
which did not accurately capture their overall competence or
performance across their service tenure.
(c) At the time of the Appellants’ induction, the grant of PC to SSCOs
had been suspended across the board. This suspension remained
operative until 2019, by which time the Appellants had completed a
Page 13 of 34
substantial portion of their tenure. Their ACRs were thus authored
in an environment where it was presumed that they would be
released upon completion of 14 years of service, without any
prospect of long-term retention. Such grading was necessarily
casual and not oriented towards evaluating suitability for career
progression. This phenomenon mirrored the concerns recognised by
this Court in Lt. Co. Nitisha & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.3,
where officers assessed without any perceived career horizon were
held to have been disadvantaged in subsequent selection processes.
Moreover, the very same set of ACRs that had been utilised in the
9th year of service to determine suitability for extension was later
reused in the 11th, 12th, and 13th years to assess suitability for PC,
despite having been recorded without any intention of evaluating
long-term potential. Finally, the Appellants were never informed of
their ACR gradings or relative merit position.
(d) The Air Force introduced a new policy in 2017 whereby Initiating
Officers (IOs) were required to separately justify any grading of 7.5
or above in the ACRs, at least 3 months in advance. This
requirement operated as a structural impediment for SSCOs who
were, at that time, still ineligible for PC and therefore, unlikely to be
nominated for such enhanced gradings. In contrast, officers with
prospects of career advancement continued to receive higher scores.
3 (2021) 15 SCC 125.
Page 14 of 34
(e) Women could be commissioned in the Air Force only through the
SSC Scheme, whereas men could enter either through the SSC
Scheme or the PC Scheme, which effectively provided a near-direct
pathway to PC. Male SSCOs were also afforded an opportunity, after
10 years of service, to convert to the PC Scheme, whereas SSCWOs
could become PC officers only upon selection through the PC Board.
Officers inducted through the PC Scheme were eligible to appear
before their first promotion board for the rank of Group Captain
after 15 years of service and, even if not selected, could attain the
select rank of Group Captain (Time Scale) in their 26th year without
further scrutiny. Such officers were also not required to satisfy the
QRs prescribed under HRP 01/2019. Consequently, higher ACR
gradings were naturally reserved for officers with avenues for long-
term career progression.
(f) Categorisation courses, introduced from 2008 onwards in various
branches/streams, were voluntary courses undertaken to enhance
professional competence. The category grading obtained through
such courses remained valid only for one year. Further, eligibility
for higher-level courses depended upon the existing grading. For
instance, to avail a Categorisation A course (the highest course), the
respective SSCO had to have successfully completed a
Categorisation B course. HRP 01/2019 introduced, for the first
time, the grades obtained in these courses as a Minimum
Performance Criteria and as an Evaluation Criterion for the grant of
Page 15 of 34
PC. SSCOs lacking the minimum Category C qualification were
rendered ineligible for consideration, while those possessing a valid
Categorisation were assigned marks depending upon the level
attained. Due to the abrupt implementation of this policy, the
Appellants were unable to obtain the requisite grades in these
courses in time and were consequently declared ineligible. Even
after obtaining the minimum Categorisation, there was insufficient
time to improve it further before the next Board, particularly since
such courses were conducted only twice a year.
(g) Similarly, the Respondents introduced, for the first time, as an
eligibility criterion for consideration for PC, a minimum CGPA of 6
in the Mandatory In-Service Courses (MISCs). These courses had
been completed by the Appellants during the early years of their
service, without any indication that such scores would later
determine their eligibility for PC. The retrospective reliance on such
scores thus operated unfairly against the Appellants.
(h) The Respondents failed to disclose the number of vacancies against
which the SSCOs were being considered prior to the commencement
of the respective Boards. Such vacancies were declassified only at
the stage of declaring the results. During the Boards held in 2019,
2020, and 2021, the number of available vacancies was extremely
limited. However, in 2025, as many as 115 SSCOs were granted PC,
including some who allegedly did not possess valid Categorisation,
Page 16 of 34
indicating inconsistency in approach to the detriment of the
Appellants.
(i) An SSCO released from service receives substantially fewer
pensionary and terminal benefits than an Airman. An Airman
becomes eligible for pension upon completion of 15 years of service
and may even opt for discharge with pension after 12 years at
certain ranks. This disparity compounds the hardship faced by the
SSCOs denied PC.
Per contra, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, supported the findings
returned by the AFT and the High Court as well as the policy regime
governing the consideration for PC, and forcefully urged that:
(a) The prescription of Minimum Performance Criteria for the grant of
PC falls squarely within the administrative domain of the Air Force, as an employer, tasked with maintaining operational readiness and organisational efficiency. The Air Force is entitled to revise eligibility conditions in response to evolving organisational requirements. Thus, judicial review of such policies and frameworks must remain confined to examining whether a policy is implemented lawfully and in a reasonable manner. The Courts cannot substitute their views for those of the Executive in matters concerning the country’s Armed Forces and their combat readiness. Page 17 of 34(b) By seeking sympathetic consideration on the ground of being on
maternity leave during one of the Boards, some of the Appellants
and Intervenors were attempting to raise new issues before this
Court, which were not agitated previously before the AFT. New
factual grounds, not previously urged before the AFT, cannot be
introduced in appellate proceedings for the first time.
(c) The Air Force’s policies have always been gender-neutral, as all
officers have been treated equally in terms of postings, promotions,
and pay. From 2010 to 2023, 631 SSCOs were granted PC, of which
441 were SSCWOs, signifying that gender has never been the
determining factor when granting PC. Furthermore, unlike the
Army, where SSCWOs were historically ineligible for PC, the Air
Force suspended the grant of PC to all SSCOs commissioned after
25.05.2006, irrespective of gender.
(d) Furthermore, successive HRPs governing the grant of PC namely,
HRP 04/2004, HRP 04/2010, and HRP 03/2011, consistently
prescribed minimum ACR averages as eligibility criteria for
consideration for PC or extension. For example, HRP 04/2004 and
HRP 04/2010 required a minimum average ACR grading of 6.5 over
the preceding three years, along with a minimum score of 6 in each
professional and behavioural factor. HRP 03/2011 raised the
minimum average to 7 while retaining the other requirements.
These standards applied equally to the Appellant-SSCWOs when
being considered for extension of service. HRP 01/2019 carried
Page 18 of 34
forward substantially similar ACR requirements. Since these criteria
remained consistent across policies, all SSCOs were fully aware of
them and could not claim prejudice from the sudden introduction
of new standards.
(e) Officers inducted through the PC Scheme and those inducted
through the SSC Scheme could not be treated as similarly situated,
as they are governed by fundamentally different terms and
conditions of service. PC officers are inducted with the objective of
serving until superannuation, whereas SSCOs are inducted for a
limited tenure to maintain a youthful and combat-ready force,
particularly given the demanding operational conditions in which
Air Force personnel function.
(f) Pursuant to the recommendations of the Ajay Vikram Singh
Committee, the Air Force has been endeavouring to increase intake
through the SSC Scheme, while reducing the strength of the
permanent cadre. This policy ensures a lower average age profile in
the Air Force and improved promotional prospects for officers in the
regular cadre. At present, the bulk of shortages exists in the non-
select ranks. Increasing the number of officers granted PC, despite
a negligible deficiency in the select ranks, would adversely affect the
morale, aspirations, and career progression of other officers.
(g) The Categorisation scheme, introduced in 1989 initially for one
branch and later extended across most streams, aims to enhance
Page 19 of 34
professional competence, standardise evaluation of expertise, and
distinguish officers based on professional calibre. It has long been
used as a criterion to select officers for key field appointments,
diplomatic assignments, postings abroad, as well as cross-
streaming of officers in the AE branch.
(h) Along the same lines, the MISCs were introduced in 2008 along with
a CGPA-based system of grading to encourage sustained
performance during the formative stages of an officer’s career. The
CGPA was intended to serve as an objective numerical measure of
merit in addition to ACRs for evaluating officers at various stages in
their careers.
(i) In an organization such as the Air Force, where competition is stiff
and vacancies have always been limited, granting PC to the
Appellants and the Intervenors, without regard to their merit
position and the available vacancies, would unfairly disadvantage
other deserving SSCOs who ranked higher in merit but did not seek
to challenge the results of the Boards. Merit-based selection is
essential to maintain fairness, discipline, and organizational
integrity.
C. ISSUES
Viewed in the context of the regulatory regime applicable to the Air Force
and the submissions advanced on either side, the questions that fall for
our adjudication in these appeals may be formulated as follows:
Page 20 of 34i. Whether the ACRs of the Appellants were graded casually without
adjudging their suitability for promotion and thus, adversely impacted their inter se merit?ii. Whether the prescription of Minimum Performance Criteria based
on CGPA in MISCs and Categorisation arbitrarily excluded SSCOs from consideration for PC?iii. Whether the assessment undertaken in HRP 01/2019 is vitiated for
any other reasons?
D. ANALYSIS
D.1 Issue No. 1: Alleged Casual Grading of the Appellants’ ACRs
This issue pertains to the manner in which the Appellants’ ACRs werefinalized and the extent to which those assessments affected their
consideration for the grant of PC. Since ACRs constitute the principal
material on the basis of which suitability and inter se merit are
determined, it becomes necessary to examine whether the ACRs relied
upon by the BoO faithfully reflected the Appellants’ professional
performance and long-term potential within the Air Force.
To this end, the Appellants contend that the ACRs, forming the
foundation of their assessment for the grant of PC, do not represent a
fair or reliable measure of their suitability for career advancement or
long-term retention. According to them, these ACRs were authored in a
policy environment in which they were never eligible for PC and were
expected to serve only a finite tenure before being discharged. The
Page 21 of 34Respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the ACRs were assessed
objectively and uniformly and that the Appellants’ non-selection resulted
solely from their comparatively lower merit.
That being so, and in order to appreciate the nature of the controversy,
it is necessary to examine the role played by ACRs within the Air Force.
An ACR is a structured evaluative document prepared by the IO,
Reviewing Officer (RO), and Senior Reviewing Officer (SRO) to assess an
officer’s competence, performance, and suitability for particular kinds of
future employment within the service. Crucially, the nature of this
assessment is shaped by the objective for which the ACR is written, i.e.,
whether it is for the extension of service, promotion, or long-term
retention. The evaluative lens applied by the chain of assessing officers
is therefore conditioned by their understanding of the career trajectory
available to the officer concerned.
In the case of the Appellants, since they were commissioned after
25.05.2006, the governing policy throughout the bulk of their service
tenure was that they were ineligible for PC. This position is not in
dispute. The recruitment advertisements and HRPs governing the terms
of induction and service made it abundantly clear that their engagement
was for a limited duration, ordinarily culminating in release upon
completion of the prescribed tenure, subject only to the possibility of
a 4-year extension. Even subsequent policies concerning the grant of PC
consistently confined such consideration to all SSCOs commissioned
prior to 25.05.2006. Thus, from 2006 until 2019, there existed no
Page 22 of 34institutional expectation that any SSCOs commissioned after 25.05.2006
would be retained on a permanent basis.
It is against this policy backdrop that the ACRs of the Appellants were
authored. The IOs, ROs, and SROs assessing their performance were
necessarily concerned with determining suitability for continuation
within a short-term framework, particularly for the purpose of granting
extension after completion of the initial tenure. Even after such
extensions were granted in 2017, the underlying premise remained
unchanged: the Appellants had no pathway to long-term career
progression or advancement to higher command positions within the Air
Force. The appraisal process, therefore, operated within clearly
circumscribed limits.
The position altered only with the introduction of HRP 01/2019, which,
for the first time, opened a window for all serving SSCOs commissioned
after 25.05.2006 to be considered for PC. While the policy sought to
broaden opportunities for serving SSCOs, it simultaneously required
them to compete for PC on the basis of ACRs that had been written for
an entirely different purpose. The reports, originally intended to assess
eligibility only for extension, were retrospectively treated as reliable
indicators of suitability for long-term retention, higher responsibility,
and advanced leadership potential. In essence, the assessments
grounded in a particular context were transplanted into another without
accounting for the diverging objectives of assessment. This
methodological mismatch in evaluation permeated all ACRs graded until
Page 23 of 34the implementation of HRP 01/2019. Although ACRs written after 2019
may have reflected the revised policy environment, they constituted a
minority portion of the material considered to determine the grant of PC,
and as such, were insufficient to offset the weight of earlier reports
authored under a contrary assumption.
Viewed in this light, the Respondents’ submission that the minimum
average ACR grading required for extension and for PC remained broadly
consistent does not adequately address the real substance of the issue
before us. The controversy does not lie in the numerical thresholds
prescribed by policy, but in the qualitative context in which those
gradings were awarded. An assessment undertaken to evaluate
performance within a limited service horizon cannot be treated as an
assessment of suitability for permanent absorption. To do so would be to
overlook the basic premise upon which the appraisal was originally
conducted.
The same principle has been recognised in two judgements of even date,
being Lt. Col. Pooja Pal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.,4 and
Yogendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.,5 whereby we have
laid down that when officers in the Army and Navy are evaluated under
the prevailing assumption that they have no future in the service, the
appraisal process itself becomes structurally distorted. Years of
assessment conducted without reference to long-term career progression
4 Civil Appeal Nos. 9747 – 9757/2024.
5 Civil Appeal No. 14681/2024.
Page 24 of 34
cannot later be deployed to the disadvantage of such officers when they
are suddenly placed in the competitive fray for PC. Ultimately, the
fairness of the selection process cannot be assessed in isolation from the
conditions under which the underlying evaluative material was
generated.
In such circumstances, we have no option but to conclude that the ACRs
of the Appellants were authored in an environment where their suitability
for PC was never meaningfully contemplated. The subsequent use of
such reports, which are not truly indicative of their suitability for long-
term career progression, to determine their eligibility for PC is thus
inherently unfair and arbitrary. In effect, such use has materially
prejudiced their consideration for the grant of PC.
D.2 Issue No. 2: The Abrupt Introduction of New Eligibility Criteria
Apart from the concerns regarding the subjective distortion in the
assessment of SSCOs through ACR gradings, the Appellants have also
questioned the sudden introduction of new Minimum Performance
Criteria for eligibility to be considered for the grant of PC under HRP
01/2019. In particular, the requirement of possessing a Categorisation
of at least Category ‘C’, is said to have resulted in a substantial number
of SSCOs being declared ineligible during the Boards conducted in 2019
and even in 2020.
Page 25 of 34On the other hand, the Respondents have defended these eligibility
prescriptions as operationally necessary and uniformly applicable to all
SSCOs covered by HRP 01/2019.
The Minimum Performance Criteria for the grant of PC under HRP
01/2019 is set out in Appendix A thereto, an extract of which has already
been reproduced in Paragraph 5.14 above. While we have adverted, in
the preceding issue, to the lack of objectivity in ACR gradings, the instant
issue raises an additional and independent concern, namely, the manner
in which these newly-introduced Minimum Performance Criteria were
applied to the Appellants during the Boards convened under HRP
01/2019.
For the purposes of this issue, it is sufficient to refer to two specific
requirements prescribed in Appendix A. First, the concerned SSCO must
secure a minimum average CGPA of 6.0 in the MISCs, i.e. the Basic Air
Staff Course: Officers, the Intermediate Air Staff Course: Officers, the
Basic Professional Knowledge Course: Officers, and the Advanced
Professional Knowledge Course: Officers. Second, the concerned SSCO
must possess a Categorisation of at least Category ‘C’.
Learned Senior Counsel/Counsel appearing for the Appellants have fairly
acknowledged that the imposition of minimum performance thresholds
for the purpose of service progression is not per se the ground of
challenge, as such matters lie primarily within the policy domain of the
Air Force and must necessarily take into account technical
Page 26 of 34considerations, operational requirements, and leadership experience.
There is no assertion that the criteria themselves are intrinsically
unlawful. The gravamen of the Appellants’ grievance lies in the manner
and timing of their introduction and implementation.
The Appellants belong to the first batches of SSCOs considered under
HRP 01/2019. At the time of their induction in 2007, HRP 21/2006 had
already suspended the grant of PC to all SSCOs commissioned after
25.05.2006. As such, they were borne into the service where neither the
Authorities nor the Senior Officers envisaged any prospect of long-term
career progression for such SSCOs.
It is not disputed that MISCs and Categorisation were available to the
Appellants during their service. MISCs formed part of the normal
progression of SSCOs, while Categorisation could be pursued voluntarily
through training and evaluation. However, there was never any
indication that performance in MISCs or the acquisition of Categorisation
would later determine eligibility for PC. Indeed, earlier policies governing
the grant of PC, including HRP 03/2011, did not prescribe any minimum
requirement relating to MISC performance or Categorisation. It is,
therefore, reasonable to infer that, prior to HRP 01/2019, there existed
no tangible career incentive for SSCOs to excel in MISCs or to seek
Categorisation proactively.
The position altered fundamentally with the issuance of HRP 01/2019
on 16.01.2019, by which MISCs and Categorisation suddenly assumed
Page 27 of 34decisive importance in determining eligibility to even be considered for
the grant of PC. Once such criteria were introduced, it would be natural
for the SSCOs to attempt to achieve the requisite Categorisation at the
very least, even if they could not improve their performance in the
MISCs belatedly.
However, the Respondents, seemingly in a hurry to implement the new
policy for the grant of PC, issued directions to conduct the first Board for
all eligible SSCOs as early as March 2019, though HRP 01/2019 had
only been introduced in January 2019 and itself stipulated that the
ordinary timeline for the conduct of the annual Board would be in May
of that year. This accelerated timeline effectively deprived many SSCOs
of any meaningful opportunity to comply with the newly-introduced
requirements, particularly the acquisition of Categorisation. As a result,
a significant number of SSCOs were rendered ineligible at the threshold
without any realistic chance to remedy the deficiency.
It has been submitted before us that, ordinarily, Categorisation sought
to be achieved in any given year becomes available only in the month of
November. Consequently, even after becoming aware in January 2019
that Categorisation had been made mandatory, none of the SSCOs could
realistically obtain the requisite qualification before November 2019, if
they did not already possess it. The convening of the Board in March
2019, therefore, left them without any feasible avenue to become eligible
for consideration for PC in that cycle.
Page 28 of 34This anomaly assumed greater significance when viewed in the broader
context of the initial Boards conducted under HRP 01/2019. Those
Boards involved a large pool of SSCOs competing for a relatively smaller
number of vacancies, especially when compared to subsequent Boards.
Moreover, in each ‘look’, a varied combination of positive and negative
factors, including applicable ACRs, enhanced qualifications, and newer
honours and awards, would come into play to determine the position of
each SSCO within the order of inter se merit.
Since HRP 01/2019 limits the opportunity to be considered for PC to
merely three chances, and since the circumstances surrounding each
round may materially affect the evaluation of merit, the ability to
participate meaningfully in every ‘look’ assumes considerable
importance. Each round of consideration thus represents a valuable
opportunity for an eligible SSCO to be assessed for the grant of PC.
Viewed from this angle, the precipitous conduct of the first Board in
March 2019 deprived the Appellants of one of the three promised and
evidently, precious, opportunities for consideration for PC. Acceptance of
the Respondents’ argument would, in effect, legitimise a situation where
eligibility hinged on prior voluntary actions taken at a time when such
actions bore no relevance to future career prospects.
A related grievance has also been raised by certain SSCWOs who were
unable to be effectively considered during one of the years due to
pregnancy, resulting in a temporary lowering of medical category and
Page 29 of 34fitness grading. It is a well-settled principle of law and social equality that
the choice to become a parent cannot be equated with an unwillingness
to pursue professional advancement. The Respondents have not placed
before us any material to suggest that such officers, who lost a round of
consideration due to an intervening pregnancy, were accommodated and
assured the three opportunities for consideration envisaged under
HRP 01/2019.
In light of the foregoing circumstances, we are constrained to hold that
the hurried implementation of HRP 01/2019, without affording any
opportunity to the SSCOs to meet the newly-prescribed Minimum
Performance Criteria, and without making adequate provision for officers
who were unable to be considered for PC due to lower medical category
and lesser average ACR scores on account of an intervening pregnancy,
amounts to arbitrariness in the effect of the policy and is liable to invite
interference from this Court.
D.3 Issue No. 3: Other Contentions Proffered by the Appellants
For the sake of completeness, it is necessary to advert to certain
additional grievances raised by the Appellants. They have, inter alia,
assailed the manner in which vacancies were computed for the Boards
conducted in 2019, 2020, and 2021 under HRP 01/2019. It has also
been urged that the Respondents did not publish any clear policy or
framework stipulating how the vacancies would be identified, calculated,
and apportioned amongst the eligible SSCOs.
Page 30 of 34However, in view of the findings already recorded in the preceding
portions of this judgement and the directions we propose to issue
hereinafter, we do not deem it necessary to undertake an exhaustive
examination of the challenges relating to the determination of vacancies.
It would be suffice to note that, vide a judgement of even date rendered
by us, namely, Yogendra Kumar Singh (supra), concerning the Indian
Navy, we have held that “the failure to disclose the evaluation criteria,
vacancy computation methodology, and allied policy considerations prior
to the conduct of the Selection Boards in 2020 and 2022 must be held to
have violated basic norms of fairness and transparency.” While the
decision in the instant appeals does not turn on this issue, the principle
articulated therein is of general application. The same reasoning shall,
therefore, govern the selection processes undertaken by the Air Force as
well, both in the past and in future exercises of a similar nature.
E. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS
In the backdrop of the policy reversal governing the grant of PC to SSCOs
commissioned after 25.05.2006 in the Air Force and the challenges
mounted thereto, it is appropriate, before parting with this judgement,
to recapitulate the conclusions on the issues that have arisen for our
determination. They are summarised as follows:
(i) The ACRs of the Appellants, having never been authored to assess
their suitability for career progression, could not have been considered as indicative thereof, and utilized to deny them the grant of PC later on; and Page 31 of 34(ii) The Minimum Performance Criteria, introduced for the first time
in HRP 01/2019, was implemented in haste without affording the Appellants a reasonable opportunity to meet such criteria prior to the conduct of the first Board in 2019.At this stage, we may advert to the current status of the Appellants
before us.
The original Appellants, who were inducted on SSC in 2007 and were
considered for the grant of PC in 2019, 2020, and 2021, were released
from service in 2021 itself. Notwithstanding the arbitrariness in certain
aspects of the assessment process, it would not be prudent or in the
interest of the operational effectiveness of the Air Force to direct
reinstatement and/or reconsideration of the Appellants for the grant of
PC. However, that alone cannot be a sufficient reason to deny any
benefits to such deserving officers. In our opinion, the approach taken
by us, albeit in a slightly different context, in Yogendra Kumar Singh
(supra) would serve the interests of the Appellants as well as the larger
structural requirements of the Air Force.
On the other hand, the Intervenors were commissioned only in 2011 and
were not considered for the grant of PC till 2023. Presently, they continue
to remain in service, protected by the interim orders passed by this Court.
It seems to us that their grievances with the evaluation process
applicable to them emanate from a different factual context than that
which we have had occasion to examine in these appeals.
Page 32 of 34In this light, we consider it appropriate to allow these appeals and set
aside the Impugned Judgement dated 26.09.2023 passed by the AFT and
the Impugned Judgement dated 19.02.2024 passed by the High Court,
with the following directions:
(i) The grant of PC to the SSCOs who have already been granted PC
by the Boards convened in 2019, 2020, and 2021 shall not be disturbed;(ii) As a one-time measure, all the SSCOs who were considered for the
grant of PC in all three Boards convened in 2019, 2020, and 2021, shall be deemed to have completed substantive qualifying service of 20 years and shall be entitled to pension and all consequential benefits, except arrears of pay, on the basis that they have completed such minimum service. As a matter of abundant caution, we clarify that even those SSCOs whose three chances were to take place sequentially in 2019, 2020, and 2021 but were declared ‘ineligible’ in one or more of the Boards, shall also benefit from this direction;(iii) The pension shall be fixed on the basis of the date of completion of
the deemed service of 20 years, but arrears thereof, if any, shall be paid to the SSCOs only with effect from 01.01.2025;(iv) The Intervenor-SSCWOs, who have been granted stay on release
from service by this Court and who are aggrieved by the results of the Boards convened after 2021 in which they have been denied PC, may pursue their remedies in accordance with the law. If their Page 33 of 34 challenges are already pending before the AFT or the High Court, they may continue to pursue such claims. While pursuing such remedies, the stay granted on their release from service shall remain in operation, subject to the modification, if any, that may be made by the AFT or the High Court, as the case may be; and(v) For all future Selection Boards, the Respondents shall issue
appropriate General Instructions, prior to the conduct of such Board, laying down: the vacancies available in each branch/stream for each batch; the detailed criteria for evaluation along with the apportionment of marks for each criterion; and any other information that may be necessary to supply to the officers under consideration for that purpose.Ordered accordingly.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of in the above terms.
............…….........CJI (SURYA KANT) ..............…….........J. (UJJAL BHUYAN) ………………………...............…….........J. (NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 24, 2026
Page 34 of 34
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1799 - 1803 / 2023
in Civil Appeal Nos. 192 - 196 / 2012
Sqn. Ldr. Nitu Thapliyal and others …Appellant(s)
versus
Union of India and others …Respondent(s)
with
Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1804 - 1808 / 2023
in Civil Appeal Nos. 192 - 196 / 2012
ORDER SURYA KANT, CJI.
Permission to file the Miscellaneous Applications is granted.
The instant Applications have been filed by 10 Short Service Commission
Women Officers (SSCWOs), who were Appellants and Intervenor-
Applicants before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 192 – 196/2012. They Page 1 of 10 seek specific directions regarding the implementation of the judgement
of this Court in AU Tayyaba v. Union of India,1 by which the said Civil
Appeals were disposed of.
To adduce the facts in a nutshell, the Applicants were inducted into the
Indian Air Force on Short Service Commission (SSC) between 1993 and
- However, due to the erstwhile policies of the Respondent-
Authorities, whereby SSCWOs were not considered eligible for the grant
of Permanent Commission (PC), they were consequently released from
service without being considered for the same.
Meanwhile, in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) instituted before it, the
High Court of Delhi (High Court), by its judgement dated 12.03.2010 in Babita Puniya v. Secretary,2 struck down such policies as being unfair
and directed reinstatement of the affected SSCWOs, along with
reconsideration of their cases for the grant of PC. Significantly,
Paragraph 61(iii) of the said judgement limited this benefit to those
SSCWOs who were: (i) either still in service; or (ii) had filed independent
petitions before the High Court and had retired or been released from
service during the pendency of such proceedings.
Admittedly, the Applicants did not fall within the ambit of the said
categories. Thus, in an effort to challenge their removal from service, the
Applicants lodged fresh Writ Petitions before the High Court, seeking
relief pari materia to that granted in Babita Puniya (supra). The High
1 (2023) 5 SCC 688.
2 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1116.
Page 2 of 10 Court, however, declined such relief as the Applicants did not fall within
any of the specific categories of officers entitled to the relief identified in [Babita Puniya](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159839005/) (supra). Aggrieved by the denial of similar relief, the
Applicants filed Civil Appeal Nos. 192 – 196/2012 before this Court.
A 3-Judge Bench of this Court, vide judgement dated 16.11.2022 in AU Tayyaba (supra), allowed the Civil Appeals and held the Applicants,
along with other Appellants, eligible to be considered in accordance with
the Air Force’s Human Resource Policy 04/10 dated 19.11.2010 (HRP
04/10). It was further directed that if they were found eligible for the
grant of PC, such SSCWOs would be entitled to “pensionary benefits on
the basis that they have completed the minimum qualifying service
required for pension.” A material consideration which weighed with this
Court was that the original proceedings before the High Court in [Babita
Puniya](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159839005/) (supra) arose from a PIL filed by an advocate, and the Applicants
had moved the High Court for appropriate reliefs within a reasonable
period of time following the pronouncement of that judgement.
Pursuant thereto, the Respondent-Authorities considered the cases of
the Applicants, as well as other Appellants, to determine their eligibility
for the pensionary benefits granted by this Court to other such SSCWOs.
Out of the ten Applicants before us, three Applicants, namely, Appellant
Nos. 9, 13, and 15 in Civil Appeal Nos. 192 – 196/2012, were found
ineligible for the grant of PC under HRP 04/10 on the ground that they
did not meet the minimum eligibility criterion of an average Annual Page 3 of 10 Confidential Report (ACR) grading of 6.5 or above for each of the
preceding three years. Consequently, they were denied the benefit of the
deemed fiction created by AU Tayyaba (supra) and the attendant
pensionary benefits.
However, the remaining seven Applicants, i.e. Appellant Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5,
6, and 16 as well as Respondent No. 6 in Civil Appeal Nos. 192 –
196/2012, were found eligible as per HRP 04/10 and were accordingly
granted pension computed on the basis of their actual last drawn salary.
On account of this, the instant Applications have been filed seeking
different reliefs. The former set of Applicants seek directions that their
cases be considered sympathetically and that they, too, be extended the
benefits of the deemed fiction of completion of minimum
pensionable service.
The latter set of Applicants is aggrieved by the manner of implementation
of AU Tayyaba (supra) and seeks clarification that the pension payable,
being founded upon a deemed completion of minimum pensionable
service, ought to be computed on the basis of a notional last-drawn
salary as if they had continued in service for that period and obtained a
Time-Scale promotion to the rank of Wing Commander. They further seek
consequential status and privileges commensurate with such an
enhanced, notional rank.
We have heard Mr. Huzefa A. Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf
of the Applicants, as well as Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Page 4 of 10 Solicitor General of India, on behalf of the Respondents, and have
minutely perused the record.
The two distinct issues arising for consideration in these Applications are
addressed separately hereafter.
A. NON-GRANT OF PENSION TO APPELLANT NOS. 9, 13, AND 15
One of the minimum qualifying criteria for the grant of PC under HRP
04/10 is that the officer under consideration must have secured an
average ACR grading of not less than 6.5, without rounding off, in each
of the ACRs for the preceding 3 years. In the case of Appellant Nos. 9,
13, and 15, who have been held to be ineligible for the grant of pension
and ancillary benefits, it is undisputed that they have been unable to
achieve this prescribed benchmark as they have obtained average ACR
gradings of 5.7, 6.24, and 6.49, respectively.
This concern of the SSCWOs was also noted by this Court in [AU
Tayyaba](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43682255/) (supra) at Paragraph 34(v). While directing that eligible
SSCWOs be considered for a notional grant of PC, which would in turn
entail pensionary benefits, this Court observed that some SSCWOs had
average ACR gradings below 6.5 and directed the Respondent-Authorities
to consider their cases sympathetically.
It emerges from the record that, upon reconsideration, the Air Force
declined to extend pensionary benefits to these Applicants solely on the
ground that they did not meet the minimum benchmark prescribed
under HRP 04/10.
Page 5 of 10
The Applicants have firstly canvassed an argument that two Short
Service Commission Officers (SSCOs) having average ACR gradings lower
than their own were nevertheless granted pensionary benefits. However,
the Respondents have clarified that all cases, including the Applicants’,
were assessed on the basis of the three ACRs preceding the year 2006
and that, in this framework, the said two SSCOs had, in fact, obtained
higher average gradings than the Applicants herein. It further appears
that only four SSCWOs, including the three Applicants, failed to achieve
the requisite average of 6.5.
The Applicants have not been able to demonstrate any specific mitigating
circumstances explaining their inability to meet the prescribed
threshold. On the contrary, 28 other similarly-placed SSCWOs
successfully satisfied the same criteria. Moreover, the entire assessment
relied upon ACRs from a period prior to the imposition of any bar on the
grant of PC, and thus, did not suffer from the same concerns as those
identified in the judgement of even date, being Wg. Cdr. Sucheta EDN
v. Union of India and Ors.3 In these circumstances, we find no infirmity
in the decision of the Air Force to deny pensionary benefits to the
SSCWOs who did not meet the minimum qualifying benchmark for the
grant of PC.
Accordingly, the prayers made herein qua Appellant Nos. 9, 13, and 15
are liable to be rejected.
3 Civil Appeal Diary No. 28412/2024.
Page 6 of 10 B. NOTIONAL TIME-SCALE PROMOTION(S) TO APPELLANT NOS. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, AND 16 AND RESPONDENT NO. 6
Turning to the second issue concerning the computation of pension
payable and ancillary privileges, it is pertinent to note at the outset that
a similar claim had been considered by this Court in Miscellaneous
Application Nos. 781 – 784/2024 in Civil Appeal Nos. 79 – 82/2012. In
those proceedings, other SSCWOs who were also covered by the
judgement in AU Tayyaba (supra) had challenged the decision of the
Respondents to compute pension solely on the basis of the last-drawn
salary at the time of their premature release from service.
Vide an order dated 15.04.2024,4 a 3-Judge Bench of this Court clarified
the directions in AU Tayyaba (supra) and directed that pension shall be
computed on the basis of the notional salary payable upon completion of
the minimum pensionable service of 20 years. This necessarily entitled
such SSCWOs to increments that would have accrued during the period
between their release from service and the completion of minimum
pensionable service.
Apart from the above clarification, it was also ordered that: (i)
commutation of pension would be governed by the policy prevailing at
the time of notional completion of 20 years of service; (ii) the SSCWOs
shall be entitled to encashment of all their leaves, subject to the statutory
ceiling of 300 days; (iii) the SSCWOs shall be entitled to the same [Ex-
4 A.U. Tayyaba v. Union of India](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176748946/), (2024) 15 SCC 338. Page 7 of 10 Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme benefits on par with retired
officers; and (iv) the Pension Payment Orders shall be revised to reflect
‘retired’ instead of ‘released’.
The present Application, which only seeks directions for notional time-
scale promotion and corresponding revision of pension and other
privileges, was filed prior to the pronouncement of the aforesaid
clarificatory order dated 15.04.2024. By way of their Rejoinder Affidavit,
the Applicants have brought the said order on record and seek directions
in parity therewith.
There can be no doubt that the order dated 15.04.2024, being in the
nature of an elucidation of the operative directions in AU Tayyaba (supra), applies equally to all the SSCWOs covered by it. To that extent,
we accept the prayers of the Applicants and direct that the various
clarifications made by this Court in Paragraphs 8, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of
the order dated 15.04.2024 shall apply to the instant Applicants as well
as all other Appellants/Intervenors who are covered by Paragraph 34(i)
of AU Tayyaba (supra).
However, we are unable to accede to the further contention that the
Applicants are entitled to notional time-scale promotion to the higher
rank of Wing Commander.
This is primarily for the reason that the SSCWOs, admittedly, did not
serve in that rank at any stage during their tenure. Apart from the
financial benefits, a promotion in the Armed Forces carries a level of Page 8 of 10 prestige and recognition within itself, even if the same is a result of a
prescribed period of service. Furthermore, promotions in the Armed
Forces are accompanied by their own set of privileges and other benefits.
Service in a particular rank is a matter of honour for the officer, their
friends and family, and for the institution itself.
Granting notional promotion would create an artificial equivalence
between those officers who actually served as Wing Commanders in the
Air Force and those who, notwithstanding their curtailed tenure of
service, never held that rank. Such recourse would not only be
conceptually untenable but may also have adverse implications for the
hierarchical structure of the service.
This limb of the Applicants’ claim must therefore fail. The Applicants
shall only be entitled to the pension on the basis of the pay applicable to
their own rank at the notional date of completion of minimum
pensionable service.
Ordered accordingly. The instant Miscellaneous Applications are
disposed of in the above terms.
It is further directed that the clarifications issued in this order, as also
through the order dated 15.04.2024 passed in Miscellaneous
Application(s) No. 781 – 784/2024, shall apply to the pension and other
consequential benefits granted by us through even dated judgements in Page 9 of 10 Lt. Col. Pooja Pal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.,5 Yogendra
Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.,6 and Wg. Cdr. Sucheta
EDN (supra).
............…….........CJI
(SURYA KANT)
..............…….........J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
………………………..............…….........J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 24, 2026 5 Civil Appeal Nos. 9747 – 9757/2024. 6 Civil Appeal No. 14681/2024. Page 10 of 10 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 640 / 2025 Neeraj Kumar and another …Appellant(s)
versus
Union of India and others …Respondent(s)
ORDER
SURYA KANT, CJI. 1. The instant appeal has been filed by two former male Short Service
Commission Officers (SSCOs) of the Indian Air Force, challenging the
order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal
Bench at New Delhi (AFT) in Original Application (OA) No. 379/2011,
whereby the Appellants’ prayer for reinstatement into service in the
Indian Air Force and for consequential consideration for the grant of
Permanent Commission (PC) has been dismissed.
The claim of the Appellants traces its genesis to the decision of the AFT
in Sqn. Ldr. Lalit Kumar Tandon and Ors. v. Union of India and Page 1 of 4 Ors.1 Subsequently, during the pendency of the OA, this Court delivered
its judgement in AU Tayyaba v. Union of India.2 Relying upon the said
decision, the Appellants have further sought parity with those SSCOs
who were released from service but were directed to be considered for the
grant of PC alongwith the consequential pensionary benefits.
We have heard Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior Counsel, and
Ms. Pooja Dhar, learned Advocate-on-Record, on behalf of the Appellants,
as well as Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, for the Respondents and have carefully perused the records.
Having gone through the judgements relied upon by the Appellants, it
becomes amply clear that the discretionary reliefs granted in Lalit
Kumar Tandon (supra) and AU Tayyaba (supra) were premised upon
the fact that the SSCOs concerned had acted promptly in challenging
their release from service and had approached the relevant forum for
relief within reasonable time after the High Court of Delhi (High Court)
pronounced its judgement dated 12.03.2010 in [Babita Puniya v.
Secretary.3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159839005/)
In the instant case, however, the Appellants have not demonstrated
comparable diligence. They were initially inducted into the Air Force on
Short Service Commission in 1998. Although they were considered for
the grant of PC in 2002, i.e. in their 5th year of service, the same was
1 2011 SCCOnLine AFT 191.
2 (2023) 5 SCC 688.
3 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1116.
Page 2 of 4 declined at that stage, and they were instead granted an extension of
service for 6 years. They were again expected to be considered for the
grant of PC in 2009, i.e. in their 11th year of service. However, such
consideration did not materialise owing to the introduction of Human
Resource Policy 21/2006 dated 25.05.2006, which purported to
discontinue the grant of PC from 2006 onwards.
At that juncture, instead of seeking a further extension of 4 years, as
would have been available to them, the Appellants themselves sought to
be released from service. Their request was accepted, and they were
formally released on 25.06.2009. It is stated that they have since secured
gainful employment in the private sector.
Owing to the High Court’s decision in Babita Puniya (supra), the
Appellants sought to assail their release from service and their non-
consideration for PC by filing OA No. 379/2011 before the AFT on
06.09.2011. This application was moved approximately 18 months after
the pronouncement of Babita Puniya (supra), 7 months after the
decision in Lalit Kumar Tandon (supra), and more than two years after
their release from service, which had been effected at their own request.
This Court has, on previous occasions, dismissed similar cases wherein
released and employed officers approached judicial fora belatedly,
particularly in situations where they voluntarily left service and secured
alternate employment. We find no reason to depart from that approach
in the instant case.
Page 3 of 4
- For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed.
............…….........CJI
(SURYA KANT)
..............…….........J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
………………………..............…….........J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 24, 2026 Page 4 of 4
Named provisions
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when India Supreme Court publishes new changes.