The Supreme Court of India urged the Centre to reconsider colonial-era norms on armed forces retirement, proposing an expert panel to review standards for “highly skilled” coast guards, and stayed a Delhi High Court order mandating retirement at 60.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has urged the Centre to move beyond outdated British-era criteria regarding the retirement age and service conditions for armed forces personnel, suggesting the formation of an expert committee to reassess the standards for “highly skilled” coast guards.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stayed a ruling from the Delhi High Court that mandated a uniform retirement age of 60 years for all ranks within the Indian Coast Guard.
CJI Kant remarked to Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave,
“It is high time that these regulations governing service conditions and retirement age are reviewed. The government cannot be stuck with the conditions envisaged and drafted in the British era. Nobody these days can imagine the role played by coast guards. The current retirement age appears to follow an old pattern.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Slams Centre: Why Can Women Fly Rafale but Not Join Army Legal Branch?
The bench was considering the Union government’s appeal against last year’s Delhi High Court ruling, which annulled Rule 20 of the Coast Guard Rules, 1986. This rule stated that officers of ranks commandant and below would retire at 57 years of age, while those above that rank would retire at 60.
Dave argued that the high court erred in equating the coast guards, which fall under the defence ministry, with other forces such as the Indo-Tibetan Border Police, the Central Reserve Police Force, the Central Industrial Security Force, and the Sashastra Seema Bal. She emphasized that the coast guards operate under significantly harsher conditions at sea, similar to the Navy, which necessitates a younger workforce.
She also cautioned that not intervening with the high court’s order could open “a Pandora’s Box,” potentially leading to similar demands from other branches of the armed forces. Dave contended that the retirement ages within the armed forces are carefully aligned with the recruitment ages to ensure a designated length of service, and these considerations fall within policy jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court noted the importance of experience in such a sophisticated and highly skilled force, urging the government not to adopt a “too static or conservative” approach to service conditions.
The bench ordered,
“Issue notice. Meanwhile, operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed till further orders… A counter affidavit may be filed within two weeks. List the matter two weeks thereafter. However, we direct the Union to constitute an expert committee to revisit the conditions of service of the coast guard personnel, especially with respect to the age of recruitment to the age of retirement. The report is to be submitted to this court.”
Order of the High Court:
On November 24, the high court ruled that a retirement age of 60 should uniformly apply to all ranks of Indian Coast Guard officers, invalidating the rule that set different retirement ages for various ranks. The court deemed the differentiated retirement ages as “unconstitutional.”
Under the previous rule, officers ranked commandant and below retired at the age of 57, whereas those above the commandant rank retired at 60.
The high court stated,
“In the absence of any factor which indicates a rational nexus between fixing different ages of superannuation for officers of the rank of commandant and below and officers above the rank of commandant in the Coast Guard, we are constrained to hold that Rule 20 and 20 of the 1986 Rules, insofar as it fixes different ages of superannuation, is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”
Article 14 addresses the principle of equality before the law, while Article 16 pertains to equal opportunity in public employment.
The high court’s order was issued in response to a group of petitions from retired coast guard officers who were still in service at the time they filed their pleas, but who retired at 57 according to the rules. These retired officers challenged the constitutionality of Rule 20, asserting that differing retirement ages led to unfair and unconstitutional discrimination.
The high court referenced a prior case involving officers from the Border Security Force, CRPF, ITBP, and SSB, which had been decided by a division bench of the same court. The central government defended the lower retirement age, arguing that the coast guard is a sea-going service that requires a “young age profile” and medically fit personnel to operate afloat and aviation platforms, as well as for command and control issues, cadre management, and career progression.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
