Delhi High Court
Naresh Kumar And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 22 March, 2021
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3734/2021 & CM APPL. 11274/2021
NARESH KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.K.K.Sharma, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through Mr.Vikrant N.Goyal with
Mr.Anshuman, Advocates for R-1.
% Date of Decision: 22nd March, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging orders dated 18th
December, 2019 & order dated 05th February, 2020 whereby the respondents
have denied the benefits of enhanced age of superannuation to the
petitioners.
2. Petitioners also seek a direction to the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to give
similar relief to the petitioners which this Court has given in W.P.(C)
No.13195/2019 titled "Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India and
Ors." vide order dated 19th December, 2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the issue raised in
present writ and the relief sought by the petitioners herein is squarely
covered by the judgment dated 19th December, 2019 as passed by this Court
Signature Not Verified
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:23.03.2021
21:53:00
in Bharat Singh & Ors. (supra).
4. He emphasizes that the petitioners herein had not crossed the age of
60 years as on 31st January, 2019 i.e. the date of judgment in W.P. (C)
No.1951/2012 titled "Dev Sharma vs. Union of India and Ors.".
5. Issue notice.
6. Mr.Vikrant N.Goyal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the
learned predecessor Division Bench of this Court in Dev Sharma (supra) has
held as under:-
"70. The Court recognises that there are bound to be implications-
both organisationally and financially - as a result of the
implementation of this decision. 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.
71. 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.
72. The Court clarifies that this judgment will not have the effect of
reinstatement of the Petitioners who have already retired. In view
of the principle of „no work, no pay‟, it will also not have the effect
of their being entitled to any arrears of pay for any further period
Signature Not Verified
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:23.03.2021
21:53:00
beyond their retirement. However, for 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."
8. Subsequently, the Ministry of Home Affairs had issued an office
order dated 19th August, 2019 increasing the retirement age to 60 years.
9. In another batch of writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 13195/2019
in Bharat Singh & Ors. (supra), the same Division Bench on 19th
December, 2019 had clarified as under:-
9. It requires to be acknowledged that the Respondents have
accepted part of the above directions by making the order dated
19th August, 2019 applicable across the board to all CAPFs,
including SSB, the personnel of which were not before the Court.
Having done so, it does not stand to reason that the Respondents
should confine the benefit of paragraph 72 of the judgment in
Dev Sharma (supra) and batch only to the "Petitioners" in those
cases, and not to all persons across the board in all CAPFs who
had retired prior to 31st January, 2019 and who had not crossed
60 years as of that date
10. It requires to be clarified that the benefit of paragraph 72 of the
judgment of this Court in Dev Sharma (supra) will be available
only to those who had not crossed 60 years of age as on 31st
January, 2009. It is further clarified that the present order will
not disturb the benefit already extended in terms of para 72 of
that judgment and in terms of Para 2 (c) of the order dated 19th
August 2019 to any of the Petitioners in the Dev Sharma batch,
who may have crossed the age of 60 years as on 31st January
2019.
11. A direction is accordingly issued to the Respondents to extend to
the present Petitioners, and anyone else who is similarly placed
but has not come to the Court or not yet made a representation to
Signature Not Verified
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:23.03.2021
21:53:00
the Respondents, the benefit of paragraph 72 of the order of this
Court. In other words, the benefit of para 2 (c) of the order dated
19th August, 2019 would be available to all those in the CAPFs
who retired prior to 31st January 2019 provided that they had
not crossed the age of 60 years as on 31st January, 2019.
12. The necessary orders be issued within 12 weeks from today."
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments and the office order dated
19th August, 2019 as well as the fact that the petitioners had not crossed the
age of 60 years as on 31st January, 2019, this Court quashes the impugned
orders dated 18th December, 2019 & 05th February, 2020 and directs the
respondents to decide the petitioners' legal notice dated 17th January, 2020
afresh in accordance with the aforesaid mandate of law and the office order
dated 19th August, 2019 within eight weeks.
13. With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition along with pending
application stands disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
ASHA MENON, J
MARCH 22, 2021
KA
Signature Not Verified
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:23.03.2021
21:53:00
