Surya Kant, CJI.

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 Ors., 2011 SCCOnLine AFT 191. Subsequently, during the pendency of the OA, this Court delivered its judgement in AU Tayyaba v. Union of India, (2023) 5 SCC 688. 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, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1116.

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 5th year of service, the same was 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 11th 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.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed.