Individuals Not Required to File Separate Cases for Relief Granted in Similar Government Disputes : Supreme Court
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel vs. Union of India & Ors., granted relief to a female Army officer by directing the grant of a permanent commission, despite her not pursuing litigation. The Court reiterated that individuals are not required to litigate separately for the same relief already granted to similarly situated individuals against government action.
The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, emphasized that when a citizen secures a favorable legal declaration, others in similar situations should automatically benefit without needing to approach the court, unless expressly prohibited or in cases of personal grievances.
The appellant, a Short Service Commission officer in the Army Dental Corps since 2008, was denied a third opportunity for permanent commission due to a 2013 policy amendment, which others in her position had received. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) granted relief to other officers by allowing a one-time age relaxation but denied the appellant similar relief as she was not part of the original case.
The Supreme Court set aside the AFT's order, observing that the appellant should not have been compelled to litigate separately when similarly situated officers were granted relief. Referring to Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise (1975) and K.I. Shephard vs. Union of India (1987), the Court held that non-litigants cannot be penalized when similarly placed individuals obtain relief. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, extending the same benefits to the appellant.