[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Charanjit Lal And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 April, 2026
$~70 to 78 and 15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 15.04.2026
+ W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and CM APPL. 9542/2021
CHARANJIT LAL AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: None.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC
with Mr. Kautilya Birat, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Pal, Law Officer with
Insp Athurv and Mr. Ramniwas
Yadav CRPF.
(71)
+ W.P.(C) 13195/2019
BHARAT SINGH & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shanker Raju, Mr. Sanjiv
Kumar Saxena, Mr. Ramneek
Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar
Tiwari, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC with
Ms.Usha Jamnal, Adv.
(72)
+ W.P.(C) 2405/2020
RAMAVATAR SHARMA AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Mr. Vidhik
Kumar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC
with Mr. Kautilya Birat, Adv.
(73)
+ W.P.(C) 9033/2020
DEVENDER SINGH SANGWAN AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shanker Raju, Mr. Sanjiv
Kumar Saxena, Mr. Ramneek
Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and connected matters Page 1 of 13
Signing Date:18.04.2026
11:31:26
Tiwari, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC with
Ms.Usha Jamnal, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Pal, Law Officer with
Insp Athurv and Mr. Ramniwas
Yadav CRPF.
(74)
+ W.P.(C) 9157/2020
SHRI N.K.S. GAUTAM AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shanker Raju, Mr. Sanjiv
Kumar Saxena, Mr. Ramneek
Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar
Tiwari, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with
Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr.
Ayush Tanwar, Mr. Arpan
Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik,
Mr.Ujjwal Tyagi, Advs. for
UOI.
Mr. Ajay Pal, Law Officer with
Insp Athurv and Mr. Ramniwas
Yadav CRPF.
(75)
+ W.P.(C) 3467/2021
ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Mr. Vidhik
Kumar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Meeraj, CGSC with Mr.
Soumyadip Chakraborty, Adv.
(76)
+ W.P.(C) 4501/2021 and CM APPL. 13758/2021
RAM PRASAD ROY AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shanker Raju, Mr. Sanjiv
Kumar Saxena, Mr. Ramneek
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and connected matters Page 2 of 13
Signing Date:18.04.2026
11:31:26
Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar
Tiwari, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: None.
(77)
+ W.P.(C) 558/2021 and CM APPL. 1467/2021
ASHOK KUMAR BHAT AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shanker Raju, Mr. Sanjiv
Kumar Saxena, Mr. Ramneek
Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar
Tiwari, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj,
CGSC with Mr. Amit Kumar
Rana, Adv. for UOI.
Mr. Ajay Pal, Law Officer with
Insp Athurv and Mr. Ramniwas
Yadav CRPF.
(78)
+ W.P.(C) 2145/2023 and CM APPL. 8092/2023
SUBHASH CHOWDHURY & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shanker Raju, Mr. Sanjiv
Kumar Saxena, Mr. Ramneek
Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar
Tiwari, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. N K Aggarwal, Senior
Panel Counsel for UOI.
Mr. Ajay Pal, Law Officer with
Insp Athurv and Mr. Ramniwas
Yadav CRPF.
(15)
+ W.P.(C) 4226/2022
K. SIVAKUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Nishant Mankoo, Adv.
through V.C.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and connected matters Page 3 of 13
Signing Date:18.04.2026
11:31:26
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Ajay Pal, Law Officer, Insp
Athurv & Mr Ramniwas Yadav,
CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
CM APPL. 43358/2021[For condonation of delay in filing
REVIEW PET. 198/2021] in W.P.(C) 13195/2019
1. The present application has been filed by the Applicant/Mr.
Devender Singh Sangwan seeking condonation of delay of 170 days in
filing REVIEW PET. 198/2021.
2. For the reasons as stated in the application, the same are
allowed. The delay is condoned.
3. The application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 43383/2021[For condonation of delay in filing
REVIEW PET. 199/2021] in W.P.(C) 13195/2019
4. The present application has been filed by the Applicant/Mr.
N.S. Gautam seeking condonation of delay of 170 days in filing
REVIEW PET. 199/2021.
5. For the reasons as stated in the application, the same are
allowed. The delay is condoned.
6. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and CM APPL. 9542/202[For impleadment]
REVIEW PET. 198/2021 in W.P.(C) 13195/2019
REVIEW PET. 199/2021 in W.P.(C) 13195/2019
W.P.(C) 2405/2020
W.P.(C) 9033/2020
W.P.(C) 9157/2020
W.P.(C) 3467/2021
W.P.(C) 4501/2021 and CM APPL. 13758/2021[For exemption]
W.P.(C) 558/2021 and CM APPL. 1467/2021[For exemption]
W.P.(C) 2145/2023 and CM APPL. 8092/2023[For directions]
W.P.(C) 4226/2022
7. The present batch of Writ Petitions and Review Petitions arises
from a common grievance concerning entitlement of personnel of the
Central Armed Police Forces ('CAPFs'), including the Border
Security Force ('BSF'), Central Reserve Police Force ('CRPF'), Indo-
Tibetan Border Police ('ITBP') and Sashastra Seema Bal ('SSB'),
who retired between the years 2011 and 2016, to consequential
pensionary benefits arising out of enhancement of the age of
superannuation from 57 years to 60 years, pursuant to directions
issued by this Court in W.P.(C) 1951/2012, Dev Sharma v. Indo-
Tibetan Border Police & Anr., and the further proceedings.
8. Since identical questions of fact and law arise, the present Writ
Petitions and Review Petitions were heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
9. The controversy has its genesis in the long-standing disparity in
the age of retirement prevailing within CAPFs. Under Rule 43(a) of
the CRPF Rules, 1955, and corresponding provisions applicable to
other CAPFs, personnel holding the rank of Commandant and below
were required to superannuate upon attaining the age of 57 years,
whereas officers above the rank of Commandant continued in service
till 60 years. In contrast, in forces such as the Assam Rifles ('AR')
and the Central Industrial Security Force ('CISF'), personnel across
all ranks retired uniformly at the age of 60 years.
10. The aforesaid distinction led to multiple Writ Petitions being
instituted before this Court beginning in the year 2012, the lead matter
being Dev Sharma (supra). Pertinently, several Petitioners therein had
already retired at the age of 57 years during the pendency of Dev
Sharma.
11. In Dev Sharma (supra), by a detailed judgment dated
31.01.2019, this Court examined the constitutional validity of the
differential retirement ages and held that prescribing two different
ages of superannuation within the same force created an impermissible
classification and violated the guarantee of equality under Article 14
of the Constitution of India.
12. Consequently, Rule 43(a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, along with
analogous provisions governing other CAPFs, was declared
unconstitutional and struck down. Therafter, this Court directed the
Respondents to take consequential steps for prescribing a uniform
retirement age for all CAPF personnel irrespective of rank. Of
particular significance were the directions contained in Paragraph
Nos.70 to 72 of the Dev Sharma's judgment. The same have been
extracted below:
"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
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."
(Emphasis supplied.)
13. Thereafter, the Ministry of Home Affairs ('MHA'),
Government of India, issued Office Order No.
F.No.45020/1/2019/Legal-I dated 19.08.2019, whereby the age of
superannuation for all CAPF personnel was fixed uniformly at 60
years.
14. Pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 19.08.2019
enhancing the age of superannuation to 60 years, the Respondents
issued further implementation and clarificatory orders governing the
manner in which consequential benefits were to be extended to retired
personnel of the CAPFs.
15. By order dated 11.09.2019, applicable inter alia to BSF
personnel, the Respondents restricted the benefit of exercising option
for rejoining service or grant of three additional increments only to
those personnel who had retired between 31.01.2019 and 19.08.2019.
Similar communications issued thereafter clarified that personnel who
had already retired prior to the implementation order would not be
entitled to reinstatement, and pensionary benefits would be regulated
in terms of the conditions specified therein.
16. Several Petitioners submitted representations seeking extension
of notional service benefits and revision of pension on the ground that
they had not attained the age of 60 years as on 31.01.2019. These
representations came to be rejected through individual
communications, including rejection letters dated 29.11.2019 and
other similarly worded orders.
17. Aggrieved by the restrictive implementation of the judgment in
Dev Sharma (supra) and alleging discrimination amongst similarly
situated CAPF pensioners, the Petitioners instituted the present batch
of Writ Petitions challenging the aforesaid orders and seeking
extension of consequential retiral and pensionary benefits at par with
those already granted such relief.
18. The Petitioners herein claim to be identically situated to the
Petitioners in Dev Sharma (supra) and contend that denial of similar
consequential benefits amounts to selective implementation of the said
judgment, resulting in discrimination amongst similarly placed CAPF
pensioners in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.
19. The Respondents, on the other hand, justify the impugned
actions on the ground that benefits flowing from the earlier judgment
does not extend to the present Petitioners, and that the Petitioners,
having already superannuated prior to the judgment in Dev Sharma
(supra), cannot claim automatic extension of benefits absent an
express direction of the Court or policy decision of the Government.
20. In the aforesaid backdrop, the present batch of Writ Petitions
requires this Court to determine whether the Petitioners, though not
parties to the earlier litigation, are entitled to claim extension of
benefits granted pursuant to Dev Sharma (supra) and subsequent
orders, on the principle of parity and non-discrimination.
21. In Bharat Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C)
13195/2019, this Court clarified the scope and applicability of the
directions issued in Dev Sharma (supra) and delineated the category
of personnel entitled to consequential benefits arising from
enhancement of the age of superannuation. The Court held that while
the benefit of the judgment in Dev Sharma was intended to operate
across the CAPFs, such benefit would be available only to those
personnel who had retired prior to 31.01.2019 and had not crossed the
age of 60 years as on that date. The Court rejected the contention of
the Respondents that relief was confined only to the original
Petitioners and directed that similarly situated personnel need not
independently approach the Court to claim parity. The relevant
observations are extracted below:
"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 31 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 31 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 January, 2019."
(Emphasis supplied.)
22. The position was subsequently reiterated and applied by this
Court in Rajender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C)
2834/2021, wherein the Court, after considering Dev Sharma (supra)
and the clarifications issued in Bharat Singh (supra), held that
personnel who had already crossed the age of 60 years as on
31.01.2019 would not be entitled to the benefit of continuation in
service or consequential financial advantages.
23. Admittedly, the present Petitioners had retired in or before the
year 2016 and had crossed the age of 60 years prior to 31.01.2019.
Their claim is, therefore, squarely covered by the ratio of Rajender
Singh (supra). The relevant extract reads as under:
"10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds
that the Division Bench which pronounced the judgment in Dev
Sharma vs. ITBP (Supra) had itself subsequently clarified in Bharat
Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.(Supra) that the judgment in
Dev Sharma vs. ITBP (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
December, 2019. Since the petitioners had crossed the age of sixty
years prior to 31st January, 2019, they would not be entitled to the
benefit in accordance with the Division Bench judgment in Bharat
Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.(Supra). Consequently, the
issue raised in the present writ petition is not res integra. Further, this
Court is of the view that the present writ petition cannot be used to
challenge coordinate Division Bench's judgments in Dev Sharma vs.
ITBP (Supra) and Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India &
Ors.(Supra) on grounds of being arbitrary and/or violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the present writ petition
is dismissed."
24. Apart from the above, it is a settled principle of service law that
payment of salary and attendant monetary benefits is ordinarily
premised upon actual discharge of duties. 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 enhancement of the
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.
25. It is equally significant that the Petitioners did not challenge
their retirement orders at the relevant time nor sought continuation in
service when the issue of enhancement of retirement age was sub
judice before this Court. 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.
26. The judgments in Dev Sharma (supra), as clarified in Bharat
Singh (supra) and subsequently followed in Rajender Singh (supra),
have consciously drawn a distinction between personnel who had not
crossed the age of 60 years as on 31.01.2019 and those who had
already crossed the said age. The Petitioners admittedly fall in the
latter category. The issue therefore stands concluded by Co-Ordinate
Bench decisions and cannot be reopened in the present proceedings.
27. 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.
28. The Writ Petitions and Review Petitions are accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
29. A photocopy of the order passed today be kept in the connected
matters.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
APRIL 15, 2026
s.godara/sh
