2026 INSC 280 Page 1 of 34

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)

Page 2 of 34

JUDGEMENT

SURYA KANT, CJI.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. Applications for intervention are allowed, and the Applicants therein are

directed to be impleaded as Intervenors.

3. 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.

4. 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 3 of 34

A. FACTS

5. 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 4 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 5 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 counterpa rts.

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 6 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 7 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 8 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 11

th

, 12

th

, and 13

th

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 9 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 10 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

(BASCO, BPKC, ISCO, & APKC)

2.00

(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 11 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 12 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

6. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, learned Senior Counsel and Ms. Garima

Sachdeva, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellants,

Page 13 of 34

assailed 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 14 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

9

th

year of service to determine suitability for extension was later

reused in the 11

th

, 12

th

, and 13

th

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 15 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 26

th

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 16 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 17 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.

7. 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 18 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 19 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 20 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

8. 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 21 of 34

i. 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

9. This issue pertains to the manner in which the Appellants’ ACRs were

finalized 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.

10. 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 22 of 34

Respondents, 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.

11. 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 I O,

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.

12. 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 23 of 34

institutional expectation that any SSCOs commissioned after 25.05.2006

would be retained on a permanent basis.

13. 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 with in clearly

circumscribed limits.

14. 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 24 of 34

the 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.

15. 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.

16. 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 25 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.

17. 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

18. 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 26 of 34

19. On the other hand, the Respondents have defended these eligibility

prescriptions as operationally necessary and uniformly applicable to all

SSCOs covered by HRP 01/2019.

20. 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.

21. 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’.

22. 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 necessar ily take into account technical

Page 27 of 34

considerations, 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. The position altered fundamentally with the issuance of HRP 01/2019

on 16.01.2019, by which MISCs and Categorisation suddenly assumed

Page 28 of 34

decisive 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 29 of 34

28. This 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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 30 of 34

fitness 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.

32. 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

33. 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 31 of 34

34. However, 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

35. 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 32 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.

36. At this stage, we may advert to the current status of the Appellants

before us.

37. 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.

38. 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 33 of 34

39. In 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 34 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.

40. Ordered accordingly.

41. 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 1 of 10

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.

1. Permission to file the Miscellaneous Applications is granted.

2. 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 2 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.

3. To adduce the facts in a nutshell, the Applicants were inducted into the

Indian Air Force on Short Service Commission (SSC) between 1993 and

1998. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 3 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 (supra). Aggrieved by the denial of similar relief, the

Applicants filed Civil Appeal Nos. 192 – 196/2012 before this Court.

6. 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 (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.

7. 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.

8. 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 4 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.

9. 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 No s. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. We have heard Mr. Huzefa A. Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf

of the Applicants, as well as Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional

Page 5 of 10

Solicitor General of India, on behalf of the Respondents, and have

minutely perused the record.

13. 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

14. 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.

15. This concern of the SSCWOs was also noted by this Court in AU

Tayyaba (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.

16. 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 6 of 10

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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 7 of 10

B. NOTIONAL TIME-SCALE PROMOTION(S) TO APPELLANT NOS. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6,

AND 16 AND RESPONDENT NO. 6

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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, (2024) 15 SCC 338.

Page 8 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’.

23. 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.

24. 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).

25. 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.

26. 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 9 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.

27. 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 no t only be

conceptually untenable but may also have adverse implications for the

hierarchical structure of the service.

28. 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.

29. Ordered accordingly. The instant Miscellaneous Applications are

disposed of in the above terms.

30. 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 10 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 1 of 4

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.

2. 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 2 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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 5

th

year of service, the same was

1

2011 SCCOnLine AFT 191.

2

(2023) 5 SCC 688.

3

2010 SCC OnLine Del 1116.

Page 3 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 11

th

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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 4 of 4

9. 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