WG CDR A U TAYYABA (RETD) AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

WG CDR A U TAYYABA (RETD) AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Paragraph 61(3) of the Delhi High Court decision is limited to (i) women SSCOs serving as on the date of the judgment and (ii) women SSCOs who had filed writ petitions and retired during the pendency; appellants released prior to 12 March 2010 and who did not file writ petitions while in service are not covered by para 61(3). Because appellants had a legitimate expectation created by the 1991 circular and advertisements and reinstatement in service is not viable given service exigencies, the Court in exercise of its Article 142 jurisdiction directed that the appellants be considered for one-time pensionary benefits evaluated under the HRP dated 19 November 2010 (Part No.5), with arrears...

Parties
Appellants: WG CDR A U TAYYABA (RETD) AND OTHERS; Respondents: Union of India AND OTHERS
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Disposed by Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Civil appeals disposed of
Legal Topics
Permanent Commission for Women Sscos, Legitimate Expectation, Gender Discrimination, Pensionary Benefits, Article 142 Relief
Armed Forces Constitutional Law Administrative Law Service Law Permanent Commission for Women Sscos Legitimate Expectation Gender Discrimination Pensionary Benefits +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WG CDR A U TAYYABA (RETD) AND OTHERS

Appellants

Union of India AND OTHERS

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Disposed by Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 61(3) and 61(4) of the Delhi High Court judgment in Babita Puniya covered the appellants who had been released prior to 12 March 2010 and had not filed writ petitions while in service
  2. 2 Whether the appellants had a legitimate expectation of grant of Permanent Commission based on the policy circular dated 25 November 1991 and recruitment advertisements
  3. 3 Whether reinstatement in service is viable and if not, whether one-time pensionary benefits can be awarded under Article 142

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 61(3) of the Delhi High Court decision is limited to (i) women SSCOs serving as on the date of the judgment and (ii) women SSCOs who had filed writ petitions and retired during the pendency; appellants released prior to 12 March 2010 and who did not file writ petitions while in service are not covered by para 61(3). Because appellants had a legitimate expectation created by the 1991 circular and advertisements and reinstatement in service is not viable given service exigencies, the Court in exercise of its Article 142 jurisdiction directed that the appellants be considered for one-time pensionary benefits evaluated under the HRP dated 19 November 2010 (Part No.5), with arrears...

Court Disposition

Civil appeals disposed of

Orders

  • All the women SSCOs governed by the present batch of cases shall be considered for the grant of one-time pensionary benefits on the basis that they have completed the minimum qualifying service required for pension.
  • The cases of the appellants shall be evaluated on the basis of the HRP dated 19 November 2010 bearing Part No 5.