New Delhi, February 28 – The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to reconsider the retirement age and service conditions of armed forces personnel, which were established during the British era, and to establish an expert committee to re-evaluate the parameters for "highly skilled" coast guards.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has stayed a decision by the Delhi High Court, which ruled that the Indian Coast Guard must have a uniform retirement age of 60 years for all ranks.
Chief Justice Kant told Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, "It is essential to review these regulations governing service conditions and retirement age. The government cannot be bound by the conditions that were established during the British era. No one today can imagine the role played by coast guards. The current retirement age seems to reflect an outdated pattern."
The bench was hearing the Union government's appeal against the Delhi High Court's order from last year, which quashed Rule 20(1) and Rule 20(2) of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986, which stipulated that officers with ranks of commandant and below would retire at the age of 57, while those with higher ranks would retire at 60.
The top court observed that experience is crucial for such a sophisticated and highly skilled force, and the government should not be overly restrictive in its approach to service conditions.
The bench ordered, "Issue notice. Meanwhile, the operation of the impugned judgment shall remain suspended until further orders… A counter affidavit may be filed within two weeks. List the matter two weeks thereafter."
However, we direct the Union to constitute an expert committee to re-evaluate the service conditions of coast guard personnel, especially with regard to the age of recruitment and retirement. The report should be submitted to this court," it said.
Dave argued that the high court erred in comparing coast guards, which falls under the defence ministry, to other forces such as the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), and the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB).
She contended that the working of coast guards is completely different from that of other forces, and they face much harsher conditions at sea, similar to the Navy, which requires a younger workforce.
Dave further argued that if the high court order is not interfered with, it would open a Pandora's Box, as similar relief will be sought from other branches of the defence forces.
She argued that the retirement ages in the armed forces were carefully linked to recruitment age to ensure a specific length of service, and these matters fall within the realm of policy.
On November 24, the high court ruled that the retirement age of 60 should be uniformly applied to all the ranks of Indian Coast Guard officers, striking down a rule prescribing different retirement ages for different ranks.
The high court held the rule to be "unconstitutional."
According to the impugned rule, officers of the rank of commandant and below in the Indian Coast Guard used to retire at the age of 57, whereas officers above the rank of commandant used to retire at 60.
"In the absence of any factor which indicates a rational nexus between fixing of different ages of superannuation for officers of the rank of commandant and below and officers above the rank of commandant in the Coast Guard, we are constrained to hold that Rule 20(1) and 20(2) of the 1986 Rules, insofar as it fixes different ages of superannuation, is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution," the high court had said in a detailed order.
It had said that Rule 20(1) and 20(2) of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986, cannot sustain scrutiny of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and held that the age of superannuation of 60 would apply to officers of the Coast Guard at all ranks.
Article 14 concerns the equality for all individuals before the law, and Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in public employment.
The high court had passed the order on a batch of petitions of retired officers of the coast guard, who were in service at the time of filing of the pleas, but retired at the age of 57 in accordance with the rules.
The retired officers challenged the constitutionality of Rule 20 (1) and (2) and said the retirement of officers above the rank of commandant at 60 and other officers at 57 results in invidious and unconstitutional discrimination.
The high court had noted that earlier, a similar dispute involving officers of the Border Security Force (BSF), CRPF, ITBP and SSB was decided by a division bench of the high court.
The central government had justified the lower retirement age, saying the coast guard is a sea-going service which requires a "young age profile" and medically fit personnel to man afloat and aviation platforms, command and control issues, cadre and career progression.