SC Denies Reinstatement to Ex-SSCOs Over Delay
- News|Blog|Labour & Industrial Laws|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 8 April, 2026
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Neeraj Kumar vs. Union of India - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 605 (SC)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Surya Kant, CJI, Ujjal Bhuyan & Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the appellants, two former male Short Service Commission Officers of the Indian Air Force, were inducted on Short Service Commission in 1998.
They were considered for Permanent Commission in their fifth year of service in 2002; however, their request was declined, and they were granted a six-year extension.
Thereafter, they became due for consideration for Permanent Commission in their eleventh year of service in 2009. However, such consideration did not take place in view of Human Resource Policy 21/2006, which discontinued the grant of Permanent Commission from 2006 onwards.
At that stage, instead of seeking a further four-year extension available to them, the appellants requested release from service. Their request was accepted, and they were released in 2009. Subsequently, they secured gainful private employment.
Following the decision in Babita Puniya, the appellants filed an application before the Armed Forces Tribunal challenging their release and non-consideration for grant of Permanent Commission. The Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, dismissed the said application.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court held that since the appellants had sought release from service and had approached the forum belatedly, they were not entitled to reinstatement or consideration for grant of Permanent Commission with consequential benefits on the basis of parity with the decisions in Lalit Kumar Tandon and AU Tayyaba.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Order of Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi OA No. 379/2011, decided on 15.05.2024 (para 9) affirmed
List of Cases Referred to
- AU Tayyaba v. Union of India (2023) 5 SCC 688 (para 2)
- Lalit Kumar Tandon v. Union of India 2011 SCC OnLine AFT 191 (para 2)
- Babita Puniya v. Secretary 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1116 (para 4).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
