Delhi High Court Declares Coast Guard Retirement Age Rules Unconstitutional

All Officers to Retire at 60; Court Strikes Down Age Disparity in Coast Guard Retirement Rules

In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has declared Rule 20(1) and 20(2) of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986, unconstitutional, thereby removing the disparity in retirement ages for Coast Guard officers of different ranks. The judgment, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, mandates a uniform retirement age of 60 for all ranks in the Indian Coast Guard.

The case, titled "Cheeli J Ratnam v. Union of India," challenged the Coast Guard rules which prescribed a retirement age of 57 years for officers up to the rank of Commandant and 60 years for those above. The petitioners, retired Coast Guard officers who were mandatorily retired at 57, argued that this differentiation violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which ensure equality before the law and prohibit discrimination in public employment.

The judgment draws on the precedent set by the court's prior decision in "Dev Sharma v. Indo Tibetan Border Police," which addressed similar retirement age disparities in other paramilitary forces. The court found that the Coast Guard, while distinct from Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), did not offer any substantive justification for maintaining differential retirement ages that could withstand constitutional scrutiny.

The court examined various arguments presented by the respondents, including the need for a younger force due to the maritime nature of the Coast Guard's duties and concerns about command and control issues. However, these were deemed insufficient to justify the discrimination. The court highlighted that such disparities could potentially lower morale among officers, which is contrary to maintaining discipline and ensuring proper discharge of duties, as required by Article 33 of the Constitution.

In its decision, the High Court granted relief to the petitioners, allowing them to be treated as having served until the age of 60. This includes entitlement to pay, increments, and recalculated retirement benefits for the additional service period.

The ruling marks a significant step towards uniformity in service conditions across India's paramilitary forces, aligning the Coast Guard with other forces where similar disparities had already been addressed.

Bottom Line:

Rule 20(1) and 20(2) of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986, prescribing differential retirement ages for officers of the rank of Commandant and below (57 years) and officers above the rank of Commandant (60 years), violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is unconstitutional. All Coast Guard officers, irrespective of rank, are entitled to retire at the age of 60.

Statutory provision(s): Articles 14, 16, and 33 of the Constitution of India; Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986, Rule 20(1) and 20(2).

The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional rights and ensuring that legislative measures adhere to the principles of equality and rationality. The court's decision mandates the Union of India to implement these changes promptly, reflecting a commitment to fair and equitable treatment of all service members.

Cheeli J Ratnam v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2812224