Armed Forces Tribunal
Namrita Chandi vs Union of India on 27 October 2026
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH CHANDIGARH
AT CHANDIMANDIR
-.-
MA 752 of 2026 in TA 12 of 2024 (arising out of MA 1224 of 2020 in TA 07 of 2014, AFT (PB) & CWP No 4052 of 2011)
Tuesday, the 27th day of Oct, 2026
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE LT GEN (DR) RANBIR SINGH, MEMBER (A)
Wg Cdr Namrita Chandi (Retd)
…… Applicant
(By Sandeep Bansal, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India and others
…… Respondents
(By Mukesh Kaushik, Sr. PC through VC)
-.-
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
The applicant was granted a Short Service Commission in the Indian Air Force. Her initial period of appointment was 10 years. Before completion of the said period, the applicant sought grant of Permanent Commission. The same was rejected. Instead, she was granted an extension of 05 years. Aggrieved, the applicant approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by way of WP (C) No. 4052 of 2011. The writ petition was transferred to the Principal Bench and renumbered as T.A. No. 07 of 2014. The same was decided along with a bunch of cases, vide order dated 18.09.2015 by placing reliance upon judgment dated 12.03.2010 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court passed in WP (C) No. 1597 of 2003, Babita Puniya and Others Vs. The Secretary and Another. The writ petition was allowed. The respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant for grant of Permanent Commission. The order was challenged by the Union of India which was dismissed vide judgment dated 07.01.2019.
2. Legal notice was issued by the applicant to which response dated 14.07.2020 was received and she was informed that the Competent Authority had decided to consider her suitability for grant of Permanent Commission,
MA 752 of 2026 in TA 12 of 2024 Wg Cdr Namrita Chandi (Retd) Vs. UOI & Ors. …2/- for which purpose an independent board of officers had been constituted. The applicant was directed to report for medical examination on 22.07.2020 in case she was willing to accept the offer.
3. The applicant did not consider it fit and appropriate to accept the offer because she was being asked to get herself evaluated on the basis of parameters laid down in the Policy for the year 2004 and 2010 after she had been out of service for 09 years. Instead, the present application was filed for modification of judgment dated 18.09.2015.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is entitled to grant of pension after considering her service to be 20 years. She is also entitled to other retiral benefits as applicable to officers who have retired from service. For this purpose, reliance has been placed upon judgment passed in Babita Punia and Others (supra) and judgment dated 17.03.2020 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA No. 2182-87 of 2020 Union of India & Others Vs. Lt. Cdr. Annie Nagaraja & Others.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the paper book is not available, thus, the case may be adjourned.
6. The orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are well known. Thus, the excuse of non-availability of paper book cannot be accepted. It is, accordingly, rejected.
7. A perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court leaves no doubt that Short Service Commission Officers who had opted for Permanent Commission but not granted the same and were instead granted extension were held to be entitled to Permanent Commission at par with male Short Service Commission Officers. The benefit was to be given only to those who had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and had retired in
MA 752 of 2026 in TA 12 of 2024 Wg Cdr Namrita Chandi (Retd) Vs. UOI & Ors. …3/- the interregnum. Those women officers who had retired were entitled to re- instatement and grant of all consequential benefits except pay and allowance for the period they were not in service.
8. Vide the said judgment dated 17.03.2020, the case of Lt. Cdr. Annie Nagaraja & Others (supra) and connected cases were decided. One of the directions issued vide said judgment was that those denied consideration for Permanent Commission and are presently not in service shall be deemed to have completed substantive pensionable service and would be entitled to pensionary benefits.
9. In view of the above, order dated 18.09.2015 is modified. The applicant is held entitled to grant of pensionary benefit by treating her having completed pensionable service of 20 years. She would be granted pension with effect from the day following the day on which she completed 20 years of service. She would also be entitled to all other retiral benefits payable to an officer retired after completing 20 years of pensionable service. Pension Payment Order be issued within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by the learned counsel for respondents/OIC Legal Cell. Arrears be also paid within the same period failing which they shall become payable with interest @ 6% per annum.
(Lt Gen (Dr) Ranbir Singh)
(Justice Sudhir Mittal) Member (A)
Member (J)
27thOct, 2026/‘b’ REPORTABLE : YES/NO