Delhi HC rules in favour of uniform Retirement Age for all CAPF officers, regardless of Rank [Read Judgment]

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a uniform retirement age should maintained for all officers of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) regardless of rank or type of force, including the ITBP, BSF, CRPF and SSB forces.

. The Division Bench of Justices S Muralidhar and Sanjeev Narula passed a ruling to this effect on Thursday. The High Court had been moved against rank-based differentiation in fixing the retirement age for officers of the following forces i.e. the Indo Tibetan Border Force (ITBP), Border Security Force (BSF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Service Selection Board (SSB).

. Whereas officers ranking from constable to commandant in these forces were prescribed a retirement age of 57 years, the retirement age for those officers ranking higher to commandant was fixed at 60 years.

. This distinction was challenged as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, more so given that no such differentiation in retirement age existed in other CAPF such as Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and the Assam Rifles (AR).

. In the judgment passed on Thursday, the Court held,

. “ There appears to be no justification whatsoever put forth by the Respondents [Government authorities] in discriminating amongst the CAPFs particularly when the retirement age of all members of the CISF and AR is 60 years and whereas the retirement age of those of the rank of Commandant and below in BSF, CRPF, SSB and ITBP is 57 years. The above classification has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, which is keeping high the morale of the CAPFs, who are performing yeoman service and supplementing the efforts of the armed forces and the police throughout the country.”

. Inter alia, the Central Government had defended the fixing of different retirement ages in the above mentioned armed forces citing the difficult terrain duties and internal security functions cast upon the officers in these forces. Arguing that their role is more akin to the Army, the Government contended that a younger age profile was required to be maintained among those in combat roles in such forces.

. After the Court was first moved in the matter in 2012, it had suggested that the Government re-consider its position on various occasions. All the same, the Government stood firm in its stance that the age-based differentiation for superannuation in combat roles was justified. Notably, it reiterated this stance through a Memorandum issued in April 2013 as well as a resolution issued in June 2016.

. The Court, however, did not find merit in the Government’s contentions. Notably, the Bench noted that the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) had already recommended by a majority of 2:1 that the retirement age should be uniform across ranks in all forces of the CAPF. It had recommended that the retirement age be enhanced to 60 years for those in combat roles as well.

. Nevertheless, the Government had chosen to maintain the status quo position of rank-based differential retirement, citing that the CPC decision was not unanimous. The Court found that the Government had erred in doing so, stating,

. “ It is strange that by merely stating that there was no consensus between the members of the 7th CPC. “No action needed be taken for enhancement of the age” was perhaps not the correct response particularly since the majority view of the CPC was for enhancement.

. The CPC was the expert body and the views of the majority of its members did deserve consideration at the hands of the Ministry of Finance. The view that there was “no consensus between the members of the CPC on the issue” and therefore status-quo had to be maintained is, to say the least, unfortunate.

. The decision of the 7th CPC was by majority of 2:1. In a multi-member body the view of the majority would normally have to prevail. The insistence that the decision should be unanimous and that the failure to arrive at a unanimous decision would amount to their being “no consensus” would be both incorrect and misleading. It is this stand that got reflected in the OM dated 20th March, 2017 of the MHA where they simply reiterated the note given by them to the 7th CPC. “

. The Court further noted that the heads of the ITBP, CRPF and BSF had also recommended such age enhancement at par with AR and CISF. Additionally, in 2013 the DGs of five CISF forces held a meeting at the CISF headquarters to unanimously hold that the retirement age should be fixed at 60 years in all forces of the CAPF.

. Over and above these observations, the Court noted that there was no rational nexus in the distinction drawn by the Government in fixing different retirement ages based on ranks in the above named forces of the CAPF. It was observed that the fitness criteria and medical tests to be cleared by officers in these forces were uniform, for all officers from combatants to ADGs and for the age group of 55-60 years, respectively.

. Moreover, the Court also took note of the concern that the discrimination in the retirement age is a disincentive to candidates who opt for CRPF, BSF, SSB and ITBP as compared to other CAPF like the CISF and AR. It, therefore, concluded,

. “ This Court is of the view that the Petitioners have made out a case of discrimination, that is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, based on empirical data that the fixing of the age of superannuation of members of the ranks of Commandant and below in the ITBP, CRPF, BSF and SSB different from those in the ranks above that of the Commandant is not based on a rational criteria and that such differentiation has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Also, the expert body that was required to examine the matter and make its recommendations, i.e. the CPC, by a majority of 2:1 favoured the enhancement of the retirement age. The concerned CAPFs themselves i.e. the BSF, CRPF, ITBP and SSB have also favoured the removal of the discrimination. “

. In view of these observations, the Court ruled,

. “… Rule 43 (a) of the CRPF Rules which presently states that “Retirement of member of the Force shall take effect from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which such member attains the age of 57 years” is held to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution vis-à-vis members of the CRPF of the rank of Commandant and below. The OM dated 1st April 2013 issued by the MHA rejecting the plea of the Petitioners is hereby quashed…

. … In view of the above conclusion of this Court that Rule 43 (a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 as it presently stands is unconstitutional and liable to be struck down, correspondingly Rule 14 of the CRPF Group (A) General Duty Officers Recruitment Rules, 2001, Rule 8 (a) of the ITBP General Duty in Group „A‟ Posts Rules and Rule 12 of the BSF (General Duty Officers) Recruitment Rules, 2001 to that extent are also held to be unconstitutional and liable to be struck down. “

. The Court also directed that the Government take necessary steps to implement the judgment in a time-bound manner as follows,

. “ The Respondents shall, unless this judgment is further challenged and subject to any interim order in such proceedings, implement it across the board to all members of the CAPFs without insisting on each of them approaching the Court for identical relief. For that matter, even though the members of the SSB have not yet approached this Court, if they are identically placed as these Petitioners, it should be implemented for them as well.

. Accordingly a direction is hereby issued that within a period of four months from today the Respondents i.e. the MHA in consultation with the CAPFs concerned will take all consequential steps by way of implementation of this judgment. This will include arriving at a decision as regards the retirement age which will uniform for all members of the CAPFs irrespective of their rank thus bringing all of them, including the CISF and the AR, on par and fixing the date from which such changed retirement age will take effect. “

. Before parting with the matter, the Court also clarified that the judgment will not have the effect of reinstating those who have already retired. Further,

. “ In view of the principle of „no work, no pay‟, it will also not have the effect of their beingentitled to any arrears of pay for any further period beyond their retirement. “

. However, it may be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating retirement and other allied benefits. As stated in the judgment,

. “ … or the purposes of calculation of retiral benefits, including pension and gratuity, the differential period (in the event of enhancement of the retirement age) will be added to period of service actually rendered by each of them. In other words, their notional date of retirement would be arrived at by adding the differential years to their actual date of retirement. On such calculation they would be entitled to the arrears of retirement benefits after adjusting the amount already paid. “

. Advocate Ankur Chhibber appeared for the petitioners in the case, whereas Central Government standing counsel Manish Mohan and ASC Anuj Aggarwal appeared for the respondent authorities.

. Read the Judgment:

Delhi HC rules in favour of uniform Retirement Age for all CAPF officers, regardless of Rank [Read Judgment]

Meera Emmanuel

Related Stories