Delhi High Court
Sh Sagar Singh Pathania & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 March, 2021
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3923/2021 & C.M.No.11793/2021
SH SAGAR SINGH PATHANIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pawan Reley, Mr. Vinod Sharma,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Mr. Manek
Singh, Advocates
% Date of Decision: 24th 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 with the following prayers:-
"a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
to set aside/quash the letters dated 15.01.2020, 17.10.2020,
5.11.2020, 11.11.2020, 05.02.2021, 09.02.2021 marked as
Annexure P-7, Annexure P-8 Annexure P-9, Annexure P-10,
Annexure P-11, Annexure P-12 Respectively.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
directions directing the respondents to treat the age of
superannuation of petitioners as 60 years and thereby grant
them retrial/financial benefits in terms of paragraph 72 of
judgment dated 31.01.2019 passed by this Hon‟ble Court in
W.P. (C) NO.1951/2012 titled as "Dev Shanna Vs. Union of
India & Ors.".
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:12:38
c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
directions directing the concerned respondents for re-fixing
the pension of the petitioners after granting the retirement
benefit as mentioned under the office order dated 19th august
2019, bearing no. F.N.45020/1/2019/legal-I, issued by the
government of India through ministry of home affairs;
d. Pass any such other orders as it may deem fit to this Hon‟ble
Court in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The relevant portions of the two impugned orders dated 5 th February
2021 and 9th February 2021 are reproduced herein below:
A. Memorandum dated 05th February, 2021
"In this regard, it is informed that Ministry of Home
Affairs vide Order No.F.N. 45020/12019/Legal-I dated
17.12.2020 (order is also available in the MHA‟s
website) received through FHQ SSB New Delhi vide OM
No.I/81/2012/SSB/Pers-V (Org)(136) 5805-40 dated
28.12.2020 has clarified that --
a) The benefits of enhancement in the age of
retirement as granted vide para-72 of the
judgment of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court dated
31.01.2019 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1951/2012 in
the matter of I Dev Sharma and Ors V. UOI, would
be available to all those in CAPFs who had retired
prior to 31.01.2019 provided that they had not
crossed the age of 60 years as on 31.01.2019.
b) The benefits already extended vide para 2(c) of
this Ministry‟s order ibid dated 19.08.2019 to the
petitioners in the Dev Sharma‟s matter (supra)
shall not be disturbed.
Hence, as all above retirees have already crossed the
age of 60 years before 31.01.2019 and they are not
eligible for benefits of enhancement in the age of
retirement of 60 years. For information please."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:12:38
B. Letter dated 09th February, 2021 (Annexure 12)
"With reference to your letter, dated 18.12.2020
regarding Grant of pensionary / retired benefits on
completion of 60 years as per Hon‟ble High Court
judgment dated 31.01.2019.
As per concluding para of judgment of Hon‟ble High
Court, pensioner/retirement benefits is admissible only
those CAPFs who retired prior to 31.01.2019 provided
they not crossed the age of 60 years as on 31.01.2019.
Keeping view of above direction, the benefits is not
admissible to you."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are
similarly situated as the petitioners in the case of Dev Sharma vs. ITBP &
Anr., W.P. (C) No. 1951/2012. He submits that the action of respondents of
not treating the age of superannuation of petitioners as 60 years and not
granting them retiral/financial benefits in terms of paragraph 72 of judgment
in Dev Sharma (supra) is unjust and arbitrary and thus violative of Article
14 of Constitution of India. Paragraph 72 of the said judgement is
reproduced herebelow:
"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 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:12:38
benefits after adjusting the amount already paid."
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court finds that
the Division Bench which pronounced the judgment in Dev Sharma (supra)
had itself subsequently clarified in Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India
& Ors., WP(C) 13195/2019, dated 19th December, 2019 that the judgment in
Dev Sharma (supra) as well as that of the Government order dated 19th
August, 2019 would be applicable to those in the CAPFs, who had not
crossed the age of sixty years as on 31st January, 2019.
5. Since the petitioners had crossed the age of sixty years prior to 31 st
January, 2019, therefore they are not entitled to the benefit of increased
retirement age in accordance with the Division Bench judgment in Bharat
Singh & Ors. (supra). The relevant portion of the judgment in Bharat
Singh & Ors. (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:12:38
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 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 31 st
January, 2019."
6. Consequently, the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer
res integra.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition along with pending
application is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
ASHA MENON, J
MARCH 24, 2021
Pkb/KA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:12:38
