"These Women Served Nation, Why Push Them To Litigation Cycle Again": Supreme Court Urges Centre To Resolve Differences in Permanent Commission Matter

The Supreme Court on Friday observed that once the proceedings have been disposed off by way of a final judgement and order, a miscellaneous application for its implementation is not maintainable.The bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud was hearing an application for directions, in pursuance of its March 17, 2020 verdict in Annie Nagaraj's case holding that serving women Short Service Commission Officers in Indian Navy were entitled to Permanent Commission at par with their male counterparts."There has been a perverse interpretation of the judgement. Firstly, they say that the terminal gratuity pay has to be refunded with interest and that it will be set out against pension. Secondly, Your Lordships had directed there has to be deemed service of 20 years and that the deemed service shall be till 2012 and the pension has to be calculated accordingly. But they are calculating the pension based on the salary of 2008. Thirdly, Your Lordships had said that while arrears of salary will not be given, arrears of pension have to be paid. Now we are not even getting half of the pension that we are entitled to", it was urged on behalf of the women candidates denied PC."This is not a contempt petition. If you are aggrieved by an action taken subsequent to the judgement, you have to take recourse to proceedings in accordance with the law. Look at your prayers – 'issue appropriate directions in view of the final judgement'", noted Justice Chandrachud."Maybe we have called it a MA. But it is only procedural… ", pressed the counsel."No, if we allow this we will get MAs to implement the judgement the moment a judgement is delivered ", observe Justice Chandrachud.However, the judge suggested to ASG Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Union of India – "They are your own officers. They have served the Navy and the Army. Please try to sort it out with the authorities. Why push them into the litigation cycle again? There in their years of retirement now. We won't entertain this, but as the ASG, you intervene. These women have served the nation. Why should they be made to go to the AFT again? We don't want to set the wrong precedent (by intervening) but you instruct the authorities. Sit down with (their counsel) and sort it out " he urged"I will also participate in the meeting. The points of concern which are raised and which are resolvable will be resolved. But as regards whatever is left, I would hope that section 14 of the AFT (Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the tribunal in service matters) is not rendered otiose by the bringing in of these MAs. I am not taking any comfort from Your Lordships not intervening. The judgement has to be implemented in letter and spirit and the genuine issues which are resolvable within the framework of the rules and the obtaining situation will be resolved", assured the ASG."This is very fair of you. Be present in the meeting. Have it in your own office. If there are differences, you can use your position as the ASG to instruct the authorities", noted Justice Chandrachud, listing the matter after two weeks

"These Women Served Nation, Why Push Them To Litigation Cycle Again": Supreme Court Urges Centre To Resolve Differences in Permanent Commission Matter

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain

"These Women Served Nation, Why Push Them To Litigation Cycle Again": Supreme Court Urges Centre To Resolve Differences in Permanent Commission Matter

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers