CAPF Personnel Who Crossed 60 Years Age Before Jan 31, 2019 Not Entitled To Enhanced Retirement Benefits: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by retired personnel of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), holding that those who had already crossed the age of 60 years as on January 31, 2019 are not entitled to consequential pensionary benefits arising from the enhancement of retirement age.A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan rejected a batch of pleas filed by personnel of forces including the BSF, CRPF, ITBP and SSB, who had retired between 2011 and 2016. They sought extension of benefits flowing from the Court's earlier judgment in Dev Sharma v. ITBP, which had struck down differential retirement ages within CAPFs and led to a uniform retirement age of 60 years.In Dev Sharma ruling, the High Court had declared the practice of prescribing different retirement ages- 57 years for personnel up to the rank of Commandant and 60 years for higher ranks, as unconstitutional. While doing so, the Court had clarified that retired personnel would not be reinstated, no arrears of salary would be payable but notional extension of service could be considered for recalculation of retiral benefits.Subsequently, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs fixed 60 years as the uniform retirement age across CAPFs.The petitioners argued that denial of similar notional benefits amounted to discrimination. They said that they were identically placed to those who had been granted relief under Dev Sharma judgment and subsequent rulings.Rejecting the pleas, the Bench relied on its earlier rulings in Bharat Singh and Rajender Singh which limited the benefit of Dev Sharma judgment to a specific class of personnel.The Bench reiterated that benefit of notional extension and pension revision applies only to those who had not crossed 60 years as on January 31, 2019. It held that the personnel who had already crossed 60 years by that date fall outside the ambit of the relief. Noting that the petitioners had crossed the age of 60 prior to January 31, 2019, the Court said:“In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present Writ Petitions and Review Petitions. The Petitioners, having retired prior to 2016 and having crossed the age of 60 years as on 31.01.2019, are not entitled to the benefit flowing from Paragraph No.72 of the judgment in Dev Sharma (supra) or the subsequent Government order dated 19.08.2019.”It held that the doctrine of “no work, no pay” embodies the equitable principle that an employee who has not rendered service cannot claim wages or service benefits for a period during which he was not in employment, unless a specific judicial direction creates such entitlement.The Court ruled that the enhancement of age of superannuation, by itself, does not automatically confer retrospective financial benefits upon personnel who had already retired and did not serve during the relevant period.“Having accepted superannuation and remained out of service for several years, the Petitioners cannot now claim notional continuation or consequential monetary benefits as though they had remained in service. Grant of such relief would amount to conferring advantages without corresponding service and would run contrary to settled principles governing service jurisprudence,” the Court said. Title: CHARANJIT LAL AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORSCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 395Click here to read order

CAPF Personnel Who Crossed 60 Years Age Before Jan 31, 2019 Not Entitled To Enhanced Retirement Benefits: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

CAPF Personnel Who Crossed 60 Years Age Before Jan 31, 2019 Not Entitled To Enhanced Retirement Benefits: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers