Supreme Court of India
CDR SEEMA CHAUDHARYversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 147
- Decided
- 26 February 2024
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- D Y CHANDRACHUD
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the AFT's direction conflicted with its own earlier judgment and ordered a fresh, stand‑alone selection board to consider the petitioner's claim for Permanent Commission.
Summary
Commander Seema Chaudhary, a Short Service Commissioned officer in the Indian Navy's Judge Advocate General's Branch, was denied a Permanent Commission (PC) on the ground of lack of vacancies despite the Supreme Court's earlier directions in Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja's case that women SSC officers be considered for PC. She approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, was sent to the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which directed a proportional creation of vacancies and a fresh consideration of her case along with officers from later batches. The AFT's direction to consider her alongside the 2011 and 2014 batches was challenged as contrary to the binding Supreme Court judgment, causing prejudice to the petitioner. The Court held that the AFT's direction conflicted with its own earlier ruling and ordered a fresh, stand‑alone selection board to consider her PC claim, uninfluenced by prior considerations, and clarified that any vacancy increase required for her would not set a precedent. The review petition was disposed of, and pending AFT proceedings against the petitioner were terminated.
Issues considered
- Whether the AFT's direction to consider Commander Chaudhary's PC claim together with officers of later batches violates the Supreme Court's binding directions in Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja's case.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh, independent consideration for Permanent Commission despite the alleged lack of vacancies.
- Whether a proportional increase in vacancies can be created for the petitioner without setting a precedent.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Permanent CommissionShort Service Commission OfficersIndian NavyJudge Advocate Generals’ BranchVacanciesArmed Forces TribunalReview petitionBinding judgmentSelection BoardProportional increase in the vacancies
Judgment
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 820 : 2024 INSC 147
CDR Seema Chaudhary
v.
Union of India and Others
(Review Petition (Civil) No. 1036 of 2023)
In
Civil Appeal No 2216 of 2022
26 February 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI and Hima Kohli, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issues pertains to the grant of Permanent Commission to Women
Short Service Commission Officers in the Indian Navy.
Headnotes
Armed Forces – Indian Navy – Women Short Service
Commissioned Officers – Grant of permanent
commission – Petitioner commissioned in the Indian
Navy as a Short Service Commissioned Officer in
the Judge Advocate Generals’ Branch of the Indian
Navy – Petitioner was considered for permanent
commission but denied on the ground that there were
no vacancies – Petitioner moved this Court u/Art. 32
of the Constitution, but was relegated to the Armed
Forces Tribunal – Directions of the tribunal formed the
subject matter of challenge before this Court in Civil
Appeal which was disposed of – Hence, the instant
review petition:
Held: Serious element of prejudice caused to the petitioner
must be rectified so as to enforce the final directions of
this Court in *Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja’s
case – Issuance of directions to consider the case of the
petitioner for the grant of Permanent Commission afresh by
reconvening a Selection Board – Selection Board to consider
the petitioner’s case on a stand alone basis uninfluenced
by any previous consideration of her case for PC and by
* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 821
CDR Seema Chaudhary v. Union of India and Others
any observations contained in the order of the AFT – It is
clarified that in the event that pursuant to the directions
of the AFT, if a proportional increase in the vacancies is
required to be created to accommodate the petitioner, this
would be carried out without creating any precedent for the
future – Exercise of considering the petitioner afresh for PC
to be carried out on or before the stipulated date. [Paras
16-18,19,20]
Case Law Cited
*Union of India vs Lieutenant Commander Annie
Nagaraja [2020] 10 SCR 433 : (2020) 13 SCC 1 -
relied on.
List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Permanent Commission; Short Service Commission Officers;
Indian Navy; Judge Advocate Generals’ Branch; Vacancies;
Armed Forces Tribunal; Review petition; Binding judgment;
Selection Board; Proportional increase in the vacancies.
Case Arising From
INHERENT JURISDICTION : Review Petition (Civil) No.1036 of 2023
In
Civil Appeal No.2216 Of 2022
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2022 in C. A. No.2216 of
2022 of the Supreme Court of India
Appearances for Parties
Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Shivendra Singh, Javedur Rahman,
Mudassir, Advs. for the Petitioner.
R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Dr. Arun Kr Yadav, Dy. Gov./Adv.,
Anmol Chandan, Vatsal Joshi, Aniirudh Sharma Ii, Ishaan Sharma,
Sarthak Karol, Kiran Bala Sahay, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Advs. for the
Respondents.
822 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
1. A batch of petitions pertaining to the grant of Permanent
Commission1 to Short Service Commission2 Officers in the Indian
Navy was disposed of by this Court by its judgment in Union of
India vs Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja3. The review
petitioner was one of the officers before this Court. The submissions
which were urged on her behalf were set out in paragraph 52 of
the judgment.
2. In order to appreciate the grievance in the review petition, a reference
to some of the salient facts would be in order. The petitioner was
commissioned in the Indian Navy as a Short Service Commissioned
Officer4 in the Judge Advocate Generals’5 Branch of the Indian
Navy on 6 August 2007. She was promoted on 6 August 2009 as
a Lieutenant and, thereafter, on 6 August 2012 as a Lieutenant
Commander. During the course of her service, she was granted an
extension in November 2016 for a period of two years and, thereafter,
for an equivalent duration in August 2018. On 5 August 2020, the
petitioner was informed that she would stand released from service
on 5 August 2021.
3. The judgment of this Court in Lieutenant Commander Annie
Nagaraja case (supra) was rendered by this Court on 17 March
2020. The directions which were issued by this Court would be of
relevance to the present case and are hence set out below:
“109.1. The statutory bar on the engagement or enrolment
of women in the Indian Navy has been lifted to the
extent envisaged in the Notifications issued by the Union
Government on 9-10-1991 and 6-11-1998 under Section
9(2) of the 1957 Act.
1 “PC”
2 “SSC”
3 [2020] 10 SCR 433 : (2020) 13 SCC 1
4 “SSCO”
5 “JAG”
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 823
CDR Seema Chaudhary v. Union of India and Others
109.2. By and as a result of the policy decision of the
Union Government in the Ministry of Defence dated
25-2-1999, the terms and conditions of service of SSC
officers, including women in regard to the grant of PCs
are governed by Regulation 203, Chapter IX, Part III of
the 1963 Regulations.
109.3. The stipulation in the Policy Letter dated 26-9-
2008 making it prospective and restricting its application
to specified cadres/branches of the Indian Navy shall not
be enforced.
109.4. The provisions of the implementation guidelines
dated 3-12-2008, to the extent that they are made
prospective and restricted to specified cadres are quashed
and set aside.
109.5. All SSC officers in the Education, Law and Logistics
cadres who are presently in service shall be considered
for the grant of PCs. The right to be considered for the
grant of PCs arises from the Policy Letter dated 25-2-
1999 read with Regulation 203 of Chapter IX Part III of
the 1963 Regulations. SSC women officers in the batch of
cases before the High Court and AFT, who are presently
in service shall be considered for the grant of PCs on the
basis of the vacancy position as on the date of judgments
of the Delhi High Court and AFT or as it presently stands,
whichever is higher.
109.6. The period of service after which women SSC
officers shall be entitled to submit applications for the
grant of PCs shall be the same as their male counterparts.
109.7. The applications of the serving officers for the grant
of PCs shall be considered on the basis of the norms
contained in Regulation 203 namely : (I) availability of
vacancies in the stabilised cadre at the material time;
(ii) determination of suitability; and (iii) recommendation
of the Chief of the Naval Staff. Their empanelment shall
be based on inter se merit evaluated on the ACRs of the
officers under consideration, subject to the availability of
vacancies.
824 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
109.8. SSC officers who are found suitable for the grant of
PC shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including
arrears of pay, promotions and retiral benefits as and
when due.
109.9. Women SSC officers of the ATC cadre in Annie
Nagaraja case [Annie Nagaraja v. Union of India, 2015 SCC
OnLine Del 11804] are not entitled to consideration for the
grant of PCs since neither men nor women SSC officers
are considered for the grant of PCs and there is no direct
induction of men officers to PCs. In exercise of the power
conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution, we direct that as
a one-time measure, SSC officers in the ATC cadre in Annie
Nagaraja case [Annie Nagaraja v. Union of India, 2015 SCC
OnLine Del 11804] shall be entitled to pensionary benefits.
SSC officers in the ATC cadre in Priya Khurana case [Priya
Khurana v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine AFT 798],
being inducted in pursuance of the specific representation
contained in the advertisements pursuant to which they
were inducted, shall be considered for the grant of PCs in
accordance with Directions 109.5 and 109.6 above.
109.10. All SSC women officers who were denied
consideration for the grant of PCs on the ground that they
were inducted prior to the issuance of the Letter dated 26-9-
2008 and who are not presently in service shall be deemed,
as a one-time measure, to have completed substantive
pensionable service. Their pensionary benefits shall be
computed and released on this basis. No arrears of salary
shall be payable for the period after release from service.
109.11. As a one-time measure, all SSC women officers
who were before the High Court and AFT who are
not granted PCs shall be deemed to have completed
substantive qualifying service for the grant of pension and
shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.”
4. The petitioner was an officer who was recruited before the Policy
Letter6 of 26 September 2008 was issued. The PL stipulated that while
6 “PL”
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 825
CDR Seema Chaudhary v. Union of India and Others
women SSCOs would be considered for grant of PC in stipulated
branches (JAG, Education and Naval Architecture), the letter would
have prospective effect. It was as a result of the application of the
PL dated 26 September 2008 that the petitioner was initially not
considered to be eligible for the grant of PC. In the directions contained
in paragraph 109.1 and 109.2, extracted above, this Court noted that
the statutory bar on the enrolment of women in the Indian Navy was
lifted in terms of the notifications issued by the Union Government
on 9 October 1991 and 6 November 1998 under Section 9(2) of
the Navy Act. Moreover, this Court held that the policy decision of
the Union Government dated 25 February 1999 would govern the
conditions of service of SSCOs including women officers in regard
to the grant of PCs in terms of Regulation 203 Chapter IX Part III
of the 1963 Regulations.
5. Having come to the above conclusion, this Court specifically directed
that the PL dated 26 September 2008, making it prospective and
restricting it to specified cadres, would stand quashed and set
aside. This Court directed that all SSCOs in the Education, Law and
Logistic Cadres who were “presently in service”, shall be considered
for the grant of PC. This entitlement arose from the PL dated 25
February 1999 read with Regulation 203 of Chapter IX of the Naval
Regulations 1963.
6. It is not in dispute that the case of the petitioner for being considered
for the grant of PC squarely arose in terms of the directions contained
in paragraph 109.5 of the judgment. The petitioner was considered
for the grant of PC after the judgment of this Court, but has been
denied PC on the ground that there were no vacancies.
7. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution, but was relegated to the Armed Forces Tribunal7 by an
order dated 24 August 2021. When the petitioner moved the AFT,
the Tribunal issued certain directions in its judgment dated 3 January
2022. The AFT, inter alia, issued the following directions:
“122(a) Respondents to identify and generate a proportional
number of vacancies as a onetime measure to give a fair
and viable consideration to the overborne cadres including
7 “AFT”
826 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Exec/Law, Exec/GS, Exec/NAI which required vacancies
for fair consideration in Dec 2020. The following applicants
in this batch of cases be then considered afresh in their
own batches, along with those who were in service on
17.03.2020:
(i) Cdr Seema Chaudhary, Exec/Law, in OA 1972/2021.
(ii) Cdr Raja Kanwar, Exec/GS, in OA 1965/2021.
(iii) Cdr Bhupesh Kumar, Exec/GS, in OA 1966/2021.
122(d) Considering the peculiarities of Law cadre, eligible
SSC Law cadre officers of 2011 and 2014 batches who
also ought to have been considered in Selection Board Dec
2020, be now considered along with Cdr Seema Chaudhary
(applicant in OA 1972/2021) in the fresh consideration
directed to be undertaken.”
8. The above directions formed the subject matter of challenge before
this Court in Civil Appeal No 2216 of 2022.
9. The batch of civil appeals including the above civil appeal by the
petitioner came to be disposed of by this Court by its order dated
20 October 2022. From the judgment of this Court, it has emerged
that the principal submission before this Court was that the AFT
had relied on certain information which had been placed in a sealed
cover to which the officers before it were not privy. Based on the
submission, this Court restored the proceedings back to the AFT.
10. Mr Devadatt Kamat, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that inadvertently the specific facts of the case of
the petitioner were not drawn to the attention of the Court. It has been
submitted that the issue pertaining to the breach of the principles of
natural justice did not arise in the case of the review petitioner since
her case stood on a distinct foundation.
11. During the course of the hearing, Mr R Balasubramanian, senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the Naval authorities and the Union
of India does not dispute the factual position that the issue which
was dealt with in the judgment of this Court dated 20 October 2022
did not arise in the appeal which was filed by the petitioner against
the judgment of the AFT.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 827
CDR Seema Chaudhary v. Union of India and Others
12. That being the position, we are of the view that the ends of justice
would require that the order which was passed by this Court on
20 October 2022 in Civil Appeal No 2216 of 2022 pertaining to
the petitioner, should be recalled. We order accordingly. We have
accordingly heard the civil appeal on merits in order to ensure that
a final resolution is brought to the matter.
13. The facts as they have been set out in the earlier part of this
judgment indicate that the petitioner is a JAG Branch officer recruited
on Short Service Commission in 2007. Clearly, therefore, she was
recruited at a time when the PL dated 25 February 1999 held the
field. The subsequent PL dated 26 September 2008 which was
prospective in nature was specifically dealt with in the judgment of
this Court in Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja case. The
Court directed that the PL which made it prospective and confined
to certain specific branches would not be enforced. In other words,
the case of the petitioner for being considered for the grant of PC
was squarely required to be dealt with in terms of the position as it
stood independent of the PL dated 26 September 2008.
14. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner
is that the directions which have been issued by the AFT in its
impugned order dated 3 January 2022 are contrary to the binding
directions of this Court in its judgment in Lieutenant Commander
Annie Nagaraja. This submission has been advanced on the
ground that the petitioner who was an in-service officer on the
date of the judgment in Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja
was required to be considered in terms of the directions issued
by this Court. However, the AFT in its impugned judgment dated
3 January 2022, directed that the petitioner should be considered
together with officers drawn from the 2011 and 2014 batches on
the ground that they ought to have been also considered in the
Selection Board in December 2020. It has been submitted that
this direction for the petitioner to be considered together with the
officers of later batches, namely, 2011 and 2014 has caused serious
prejudice to her.
15. Mr R Balasubramanian, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
Union of India, on the other hand, submits that such a consideration
with subsequent batches was made in order to ensure that a fair
828 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
opportunity was granted to all concerned officers and to widen the
field of consideration.
16. There is merit in the challenge to the direction which has been
issued by the AFT requiring that the candidature of the petitioner
for the grant of PC should be dealt with the batches of 2011 and
2014. To do so would amount to introducing a condition which was
not a part of the judgment of this Court in Lieutenant Commander
Annie Nagaraja. The binding judgment, which has to be enforced
is the decision of this Court in Lieutenant Commander Annie
Nagaraja. Any directions de-hors the judgment of the Court could
not obviously be issued. Though the case of the petitioner has been
considered after the decision in Lieutenant Commander Annie
Nagaraja, there is a serious element of prejudice which has been
caused to the petitioner which must be rectified so as to enforce the
final directions of this Court.
17. We accordingly order and direct that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, the case of the petitioner for the grant
of PC shall be considered afresh by reconvening a Selection Board.
The Selection Board shall consider the case of the petitioner on a
stand alone basis since it is common ground that she was the only
serving JAG Branch officer of the 2007 batch whose case for the
grant of PC was required to be considered. The consideration by
the Selection Board shall take place uninfluenced by any previous
consideration of her case for PC and uninfluenced by any observations
contained in the order of the AFT.
18. We however clarify that in the event that pursuant to the directions
of the AFT, if a proportional increase in the vacancies is required to
be created to accommodate the petitioner, this shall be carried out
without creating any precedent for the future. We have issued this
direction under Article 142 of the Constitution so as to ensure that
while no other officer is displaced, a long standing injustice to the
petitioner is duly rectified.
19. Any Annual Confidential Report which has not been communicated
to the petitioner shall not be considered for the purpose of the grant
of PC.
20. The exercise of considering the petitioner afresh for PC shall be
carried out on or before 15 April 2024.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 829
CDR Seema Chaudhary v. Union of India and Others
21. Should the petitioner be aggrieved by any further decision that is
taken, she shall be at liberty to pursue her remedies in accordance
with law. It is understood by both the petitioner, who is personally
present before the Court, as well as the counsel for the Naval
authorities that all pending proceedings before the AFT relating to the
petitioner shall stand disposed of in view of the present directions.
22. The Review Petition is accordingly disposed of.
23. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case:
Review Petition disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Permanent Commission"Sign in to search