SC Grants Pension Relief to SSCOs – PC Process Arbitrary

Case Details: Wg. Cdr. Sucheta EDN vs. Union of India - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 581 (SC)[24-03-2026]

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Surya Kant, CJI, Ujjal Bhuyan & Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
• Dr (Mrs) Menka Guruswamy, Huzefa A. Ahmadi, Sr. Advs., Ms Garima Sachdeva, Hansdeep Singh, Ms Shaswati Parhi, Bhumika Yadav, Ms Divyanshi Maurya, Anmol Gupta, Atharva Khanapurkar, Lalit Nagar, Amrish Ranjan Pandey, Sudhanshu, Naveen Kumar, Ms S. Ambica, Atul Kumar, Abhimanyu Sharma, Ms Deepali Atreja, Arun Gaur, Ms Rashmi Singh, Alekh Apoorva, Deva Vrat Anand, Rajesh Kumar, Advs., Rohit Kumar, Ms Pooja Dhar, Tarun Gupta, Rakesh Kumar & Rahul Krishna, AORs for the Petitioner.
• Mrs Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Ms Riddhi Jad, Ms Shreya Jain, Ms Anupriya Srivastav, Nitin Chowdhary P., Sachin Sharma, Ms Neha Malik, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Santosh Kumar, Akshay Amritanshu, Madhav Sinhal, Chandra Prakash, Madhav Singhal, Jagdish Chandra, Bhuvan Kapoor, Digvijay Dham, Sahil Kalia, Siddharth Gill, Chandan Kumar, Ms Anju Thomas, Sanjeev Kaushik, Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Ms Bhumika Yadav, Arjun Moha, Anmol Chandan, Advs., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Sahil Chandra, Akshay Bhandari, Ms Astha Sharma, AORs & Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellants, being Short Service Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs) commissioned in 2007, were considered for grant of Permanent Commission (PC) pursuant to HRP 01/2019. This consideration followed the earlier suspension of grant of PC to post-25 May 2006 SSCOs. However, the appellants were denied PC on the basis of Minimum Performance Criteria and comparative merit.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the appellants had been recorded in a regime where they were ineligible for PC and were not evaluated for long-term career progression. Accordingly, such ACRs could not be relied upon to deny grant of PC.

It was further noted that the Minimum Performance Criteria, introduced for the first time under HRP 01/2019, had been implemented in haste without affording a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to meet such criteria prior to the constitution of the first Selection Board in 2019.

The Court also held that the hurried implementation of HRP 01/2019, without providing adequate opportunity to comply with the newly prescribed criteria and without accommodating officers affected by intervening circumstances such as pregnancy, rendered the selection process arbitrary.

Further, the non-disclosure of the evaluation criteria and the methodology for computation of vacancies prior to the Selection Boards was held to be violative of principles of fairness and transparency.

Accordingly, while the grant of PC already made was not disturbed, the Court directed that SSCOs who were considered in all three Selection Boards held between 2019 and 2021 shall be entitled to a one-time relief of deemed completion of 20 years of qualifying service, along with consequential pensionary benefits, excluding arrears of pay, on the basis that they had completed the minimum qualifying service.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Yogendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India [2026] 184 taxmann.com 582 (SC) (para 34) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Babita Puniya v. Secretary 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1116 (para 5.6.)
• Sqn. Ldr. Lalit Kumar Tandon v. Union of India 2011 SCC OnLine AFT 191 (para 5.8.)
• Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha v. Union of India (2021) 15 SCC 125 (para 6)
• Lt. Col. Pooja Pal v. Union of India [2026] 184 taxmann.com 584 (SC) (para 16)
• Yogendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India [2026] 184 taxmann.com 582 (SC) (para 16).