Why Delhi HC struck down 1986 rule to mandate uniform retirement age for all Coast Guard ranks

Court called the rank-based retirement gap 'astonishing', ruling that the differential in ages of superannuation violated the Constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

Representational image | @IndiaCoastGuard

New Delhi: In a major ruling affecting thousands of personnel, the Delhi High Court Monday struck down provisions of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986 that mandated different retirement ages for officers based on rank.

Calling the justification for such a distinction “astonishing” and unsupported by evidence, the court held that all Indian Coast Guard (ICG) officers must retire at 60, irrespective of rank.

The petitions had been filed by three now-retired Coast Guard officers when all of them were still in service.

A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, in a judgement reserved on 29 July and delivered Monday, declared that the differential in ages of superannuation violated the Constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

“Resultantly, we hold that the impugned Rule 20(1) and 20(2) of the 1986 Rules cannot sustain scrutiny of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India… They are, therefore, quashed and set aside. We hold, therefore, that the age of superannuation of 60 would apply to officers of the Coast Guard at all ranks,” the court said in the 68-page ruling.

The rules and the core dispute

Rules 20(1) and 20(2) of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986 prescribed that officers above the rank of Commandant retire at 60, while officers of the rank of Commandant and below, as well as enrolled personnel, retire at 57.

A batch of petitions filed in 2021 challenged this three-year difference as arbitrary, discriminatory, and inconsistent with principles of equal opportunity in public employment under the Indian Constitution.

The petitioners argued that the rule enforced an “invidious and unconstitutional discrimination”, particularly since other paramilitary forces had moved to a uniform retirement age following judicial intervention.

Parallel legal history: The Dev Sharma precedent

The challenge drew heavily from the 2019 Dev Sharma v. Indo Tibetan Border Police case, in which a coordinate Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had held retirement-age differentiation within Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) unconstitutional.

After the Supreme Court dismissed the Centre’s appeal, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued an order on 19 August 2019, making 60 years the uniform retirement age across all CAPFs, including CRPF, BSF, ITBP, SSB, CISF, and Assam Rifles.

However, the Coast Guard was not included in this equalisation. Although a paramilitary force, the ICG is “not a CAPF”, the government maintained, leaving Rules 20(1) and 20(2) untouched, a position that triggered fresh litigation.

Govt’s defence: ‘Sea-going profile’ & medical risks

Defending the lower retirement age before the Delhi High Court, the Union of India cited the need for a younger force.

It argued that the ICG, being a maritime service, “requires young and medically fit personnel to man afloat and aviation platforms”, and that increasing the age would affect the “young age profile”.

The government said that “age-related afflictions and prevalence of lifestyle diseases has a visible impact on medical standards of personnel beyond the age of 50 years”, noting that 34 percent of officers and 50 percent of enrolled personnel in the 50–54 age bracket were placed in the low medical category.

Unlike land-based forces where medical aid is immediately available, the Centre argued, evacuation from sea “will entail considerable time… burden the exchequer… and lead to depletion of force level at the sea besides risking the life of the person”.

Also, in response to similar challenges before the Madras High Court, the Coast Guard Headquarters had reiterated on May 20, 2024, that equalisation was “not possible”.

The Delhi High Court found the Centre’s reasoning wholly unpersuasive.

“We are truly astonished at the reasons adduced for justifying retiring officers above the rank of Commandant at 60 and all other officers and personnel of the Coast Guard at 57… Vague expressions and exaggerated assumptions have been employed, as if to justify the decision to have disparate ages of retirement at any cost,” the bench noted.

Crucially, the court noted the complete absence of data to support the claimed operational or medical concerns.

Addressing the argument about medical evacuation challenges between ages 57 and 60, the court remarked, “Is it that persons below the age of 57 years would not fall sick while at sea or that there would be any lesser difficulty in bringing them back? We leave it at that.”

The Article 33 argument

Article 33 of the Indian Constitution empowers Parliament to create laws that can restrict the fundamental rights of individuals in the armed forces, police, intelligence agencies, and related telecommunications roles.

While recognising that the ICG is an Armed Force of the Union and that Parliament may restrict fundamental rights under Article 33 to ensure discipline and effective service, the court held that no such necessity was established in this case.

The court concluded that the disparate retirement ages had “nothing whatsoever to do” with either operational efficiency or discipline, and were instead based on unsupported assumptions.

Benefits to be recalculated, dues paid in 12 weeks

Declaring the ICG the “only paramilitary force” still enforcing a lower retirement age for certain ranks, the court struck down the rules and mandated immediate uniformity.

All Coast Guard officers will now retire at 60 years, the bench held. For those who were already retired at 57, the court directed that they shall be “treated as having continued in service till the age of 60”, and that their pay, increments, pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits must be recomputed and paid within 12 weeks of the judgment’s upload.

The decision echoes the sentiment in Dev Sharma, which warned that differential superannuation ages risked “lowering the morale of the members of the CAPFs”, a concern the Delhi High Court found fully applicable to the Coast Guard as well.

(Edited by Sugita Katyal)