The Delhi High Court on Monday struck down provisions of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986, that mandated different retirement ages for officers based on rank [Chetali J Ratnman v Union of India & Ors]. .A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla held that the distinction provided in the rules was unconstitutional and unsupported by rational justification. "Resultantly, we hold that the impugned Rule 20(1) and 20(2) of the 1986 Rules cannot sustain scrutiny of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, to the extent they fix the age of superannuation of officers of the rank of Commandant and below, and enrolled persons, at 57. They are, therefore, quashed and set aside. We hold, therefore, that the age of superannuation of 60 would apply to officers of the Coast Guard at all ranks,” the Court said. .The High Court allowed a bunch of petitions challenging the Rules 20(1) and 20(2) of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986. It was stated that the Rules provide that in the Indian Coast Guard, officers of the rank of Commandant and below would retire at the age of 57, whereas officers above the rank of Commandant would retire at 60.The petitioners argued that the law was violative of Articles 14 (right to equality) and 16 (equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) of the Constitution by enforcing an arbitrary retirement age. The Central government justified the lower retirement age by citing the need for a younger “sea-going profile”, medical fitness concerns, command and control issues and career stagnation risks..After considering the case, the High Court agreed with the petitioners and declared the Rules unconstitutional, observing that offshore duties were not exclusively performed by officers below the rank of Commandant. “We are truly astonished at the reasons adduced for justifying retiring officers above the rank of Commandant at 60 and all other officers and personnel of the Coast Guard at 57. Far from being in the least convincing, let alone realistic, the reasons are not supported by one scintilla of empirical data, placed before us. Vague expressions and exaggerated assumptions have been employed, as if to justify the decision to have disparate ages of retirement at any cost,” the Court said. .Advocates Himanshu Gautam, Kishan Gautam, Anuradha Pandey and Lokesh Sharma appeared for the petitioners. Senior Panel Counsel Advocate Raj Kumar Yadav along with advocates Vaibhav Bhardwaj, Tripti Sinha, Jaswinder Singh, Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Shubhra Parashar and Gokul Atrey appeared for the respondents. .[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
