As per case facts, the appellant, a Short Service Commissioned Officer in the Army Dental Corps, was entitled to three chances for permanent commission with age limit extensions. However, policy ... amendments in 2013 deleted these age relaxation provisions, effectively denying her a third chance. While other similarly situated officers successfully obtained relief and one-time age relaxation from the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Principal Bench, the appellant, due to pregnancy, maternity leave, and postings, approached the AFT later. Her subsequent application for similar relief was dismissed on the sole ground that she was not a party to the original litigation. The question arose whether an officer, identically situated to those who received permanent commission through an AFT judgment after policy amendments made them ineligible, should be denied the same benefit simply because she was not a petitioner in the earlier litigation, especially when a clear case of discrimination was made out. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was wrongly excluded from consideration, reaffirming the principle that benefits extended by a court to similarly situated individuals should not be restricted only to petitioners. Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed that the appellant be granted Permanent Commission, along with all consequential benefits such as seniority, promotion, and monetary benefits, with effect from the same date as the similarly situated persons who had previously obtained these benefits. The Court emphasized that it would be unfair to deny relief to individuals who are identically situated.