The Supreme Courtroom right now urged the Indian Coast Guard to grant Everlasting Fee to a Brief Service Fee-woman officer Priyanka Tyagi. It was mentioned that if the ICG doesn’t do the needful, the courtroom will go an applicable path.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana conveyed its opinion to Legal professional Normal R Venkataramani, whereas coping with Tyagi’s petition difficult Delhi Excessive Courtroom’s denial of interim aid for her continuation as a Deputy Commandant.
Notably, in 2024, the highest Courtroom had transferred to itself Tyagi’s writ petition earlier than the Excessive Courtroom. By means of an interim order, the Court also allowed her to continue within the ICG on the similar publish as she had previous to retirement in December 2023.
Immediately, Advocate-on-File Siddhant Sharma, for Tyagi, knowledgeable the courtroom that up until the Excessive Courtroom stage, the respondents denied having a coverage for grant of Everlasting Fee to girls in ICG. He additional acknowledged that the petitioner had about 4500 hours of flying expertise, which was greater than each women and men officers.
AG Venkataramani nevertheless drew the courtroom’s consideration to a “qualitative” distinction between the ICG and the Indian Navy. He mentioned that new ships having been acquired , induction of extra women and men officers within the ICG is now doable.
The AG added that however the truth that the petitioner would have gone out of service in 2023 the respondent will look at if she will be accommodated.
The CJI nevertheless questioned how the petitioner might be denied PC when males officers have been being prolonged the profit. “Are you able to deny PC as a result of you do not have a coverage?” the CJI requested.
The AG in response urged the courtroom to not take a look at the case as a gender challenge. He asserted that there was no inherent gender insensitivity at play, nor arbitrariness concerned within the choice. Pointing to hardships confronted by an ICG officer, the AG additionally mentioned that posts can’t be created for all eligible officers in a single day. “Coast Guard is not like Navy. If you do not have infrastructure, you possibly can’t induct officers.”
“Hyper-technical objections won’t work. In case you have a system for males officers, how are you going to deny [PC] to girls officers?”, the CJI remarked, whereas observing that ICG can not take good thing about its personal flawed (not having a coverage).
The AG nevertheless continued that in Indian Navy, which grants PC to girls officers, infrastructure has been there since lengthy. The Coast Guard, nevertheless, began off with minimal gear. They each function in numerous circumstances and sure particular amenities are required for girls officers, he urged.
Unconvinced, CJI mentioned, “It (the distinction) shouldn’t be of such nature that they are often disadvantaged utterly.” Justice Bagchi additionally famous that Tyagi was really useful by her superior officers.
At this level, Sharma additionally knowledgeable the courtroom that Tyagi was denied CCL (Youngster Care Go away) by the ICG. She needed to depart her 15-month previous child behind to affix the service in Andamans.
Finally, the CJI informed the AG, “if she (Tyagi) is absorbed by them (ICG) themselves, effective. If not, we are going to go an order. We won’t permit an officer to be humiliated like this. From the checklist of eligible officers, we discover she is the senior most. Allow them to present sportsmanship.”
Background
The girl Officer/petitioner was appointed as Assistant Commandant (Normal Obligation-Ladies) in 2009. She was promoted to the publish of Deputy Commandant (GD) in 2015 and to the publish of Commandant (JG) in 2021. In 2021, she submitted a request for everlasting absorption together with suggestions from her commanding officers.
Nevertheless, a yr later, the request was returned with out motion, on the idea that the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) letter dated February 25, 2019 (concerning the grant of everlasting absorption to girls officers) didn’t apply to ICG. Reportedly, the petitioner was additionally communicated that no provision for everlasting absorption/fee of SSA Officers existed in ICG. Quite, the process for induction of girls officers within the everlasting cadre of the GD department existed and the PMT/SSC possibility needed to be exercised on the time of enrolment.
In Could 2023, the petitioner was communicated a launch order pursuant to the completion of her engagement interval. Towards the identical, she approached the Delhi Excessive Courtroom. The Excessive Courtroom denied interim aid to the petitioner, being of the view that if the petitioner was finally profitable, she might be directed to be reinstated retrospectively. Nevertheless, if she was not profitable, any interval spent in continuation of service, by way of an interim order handed, would quantity to unlawful usurpation of workplace with none entitlement thereto.
Consequently, the petitioner was launched from service in December 2023. Difficult the Excessive Courtroom order, she approached the Supreme Courtroom.
Case Title: Priyanka Tyagi v. Union of India & Ors., Particular Go away to Attraction (C) 3045/2024
