The principle of 'no work, no pay' and the importance of challenging decisions that affect one's rights were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. - Cm No.21251/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6737/2021

3. The present petition has been filed by 19 petitioners working as Inspectors / Sub Inspectors with the respondents Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). It has been pleaded by the petitioners that (i) they are working with the respondents as Inspectors/ Sub Inspectors and earlier the date of superannuation for the petitioners was 57 years; (ii) it was held in the judgment dated 31st January, 2019 by Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1951/2012 titled Dev Sharma Vs. Indo Tibetan Border Police, that there will be a uniform age of superannuation in all Central and Allied Police Forces (CAPFs) of 60 years irrespective of rank; (iii) the SLP against the said judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10th May, 2019 and the review petition was also dismissed on 16th July, 2019 by the Supreme Court; (iv) with effect from 31st January, 2019, the superannuation age in respect of all personnel including the petitioners stood enhanced from 57 years to 60 years; (iv) all the petitioners superannuated between 31st January, 2019 and 30th June, 2019, as the respondents failed to implement the aforesaid judgment. ; (v) on 19th August, 2019, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) finally issued an order implementing the judgment of this Court in Dev Sharma supra; (vi) in terms of the aforesaid order, all the petitioners re-joined the respondents CRPF between 1 st October, 2019 and 20th November, 2019 after returning the pensionary benefits received by them after superannuation at the age of 57 years; (vi) after re-joining, they were denied pay and allowances for the intervening period, from the date of superannuation at the age of 57 years to the date of re-joining by the respondents on the principle of "no work, no pay".

4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners praying that the intervention period i.e. from the date of superannuation upon attaining the age of 57 years to the date of re-joining be regularised as "duty" and pay and allowances for the intervening period along with all other consequential benefits be given to all the petitioners.

5. It was contended by the counsel for the petitioners that (i) the petitioners are not covered by para 72 of the judgment in Dev Sharma supra as they had not superannuated before the said judgment was delivered. (ii) that delay was on part of the respondent to implement the judgement in Dev Sharma supra (iii) the petitioners are being penalised for the delay caused by the respondents in implementing the judgment in Dev Sharma supra (iv) that other similarly placed personnel filed petitions before this court and were granted interim stay against being superannuated at the age of 57.

6. Since the counsel for the petitioner has placed emphasis on para 72 of judgment in Dev Sharma supra, the same is being reproduced below:

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.

7. Strictly speaking, the aforementioned paragraph would not apply to the petitioners for the reason that the petitioners had not superannuated before the said judgment was passed. However, the principle adopte