Delhi High Court
Ram Chander Kasania And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 4 February, 2019
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 695/2019 & CM Appl.No. 3038/2019
RAM CHANDER KASANIA AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Ankur Chibber, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with
Mr. Kavindra Gill & Mr. Aditya Goyal, Advocates
for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 04.02.2019
1. The prayers in the present petition are similar to the prayers in WP(C) No.
1951/2012 and batch matters i.e. Dev Sharma v. ITBP which was decided
by this Court on 31st January, 2019. By the said judgment this Court
declared Rule 43 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 and other incidental Rules to the
extent they provided that a member of the Central and Allied Police Forces
(CAPFs) including the ITBP, the BSF and the CRPF up to the rank of
Commandant would retire at 57 years to be discriminatory and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. Further, this Court has in Dev Sharma v. ITBP (supra) granted the
Respondents four months' time to take all consequential steps by way of
implementation of the judgment. In this period, the Respondents have to
take a decision as regards the retirement age which will be uniform for all
members of the CAPFs [including the CISF and the Assam Rifles (AR)
where at present the uniform retirement age is 60 years] irrespective of their
rank. This Court has further clarified that the said judgment would not have
the effect of reinstatement of those who have already retired.
3. The two Petitioners in the present petition were enrolled in the BSF.
Petitioner No.1 rose to rank of Deputy Commandant (DC) and
superannuated on 31st January, 2019 on completion of 57 years of age.
Petitioner No.2, who too is a DC, would on the basis of the relevant Rules as
they stood prior to the decision in Dev Sharma v. ITBP (supra),
superannuate on 28th February 2019 on completion of 57 years of age.
4. It is pointed out by Mr. Chibber, learned counsel for the Petitioners, that
no Pension Payment Orders (PPOs) are being issued to those like the present
Petitioners who have either superannuated during the pendency of the
decision in Dev Sharma v. ITBP (supra) stating that it would have to await
the consequential steps to be taken pursuant to the said decision. Mr.
Chibber points out that one administrative difficulty as a result of the said
decision is that no PPO can be issued unless a final decision is taken by the
Respondents on the uniform age of superannuation. This means that persons
such as the Petitioners would receive no pension and other retiral benefits in
the meanwhile.
5. In order to ensure that till such time the Respondents take the
consequential steps for implementing the above judgment, no inconvenience
is caused to such of those members of the CAPFs who superannuate in terms
of the Rules as they existed prior to the judgment in Dev Sharma v. ITBP
(supra), it is clarified that the Respondents will continue to issue PPOs in
respect of such members of the CAPFs as and when they superannuate on
the basis of Rules as they stood prior to the judgment. However, in the event
that the Respondents decide, by way of implementation of the judgment, that
the uniform age of superannuation would be 60 years or any age beyond 57
years, then depending on the date from which the change will take effect, the
direction of this Court in para 72 of the judgment that it would not have the
effect of reinstatement of those who have already retired would not come in
the way of the Respondents deciding to reinstate such of those members of
the CAPFs who would not have reached the uniform age of superannuation
as determined. The Respondents will issue appropriate consequential orders
at that stage.
6. With the above clarification, the petition and application are disposed of
in terms of the judgement dated 31st January, 2019 Dev Sharma v. ITBP
(supra). This clarification would apply to all those covered by the judgment
of this Court in Dev Sharma v. ITBP (supra).
S.MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
FEBRUARY 04, 2019
mw
