Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Asha Menon, JJ.
Sagar Singh Pathania & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 3923 of 2021; C.M. No. 11793 of 2021
Decided On : 24-03-2021
Mandamus - Age of Superannuation - Dev Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. - Para 72 of judgment dated 31.01.2019 - 19th August 2019, F.N.45020/1/2019/legal-I - 17.12.2020, 28.12.2020 - 60 years - Retirement benefits - CAPFs - No reinstatement or arrears of pay - Notional date of retirement - Arrears of retirement benefits - Division Bench judgment in Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) 13195/2019, dated 19th December, 2019 - Benefit of paragraph 72 of the judgment in Dev Sharma (supra) - Not entitled to benefit of increased retirement age - 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 - Extension of benefits 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 31st January, 2019
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought writs to set aside/quash certain letters and to treat their age of superannuation as 60 years, granting them retirement/financial benefits. The respondents had not treated their age of superannuation as 60 years and had not granted them the mentioned benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of increased retirement age as they had crossed the age of sixty years prior to 31st January, 2019, as per the Division Bench judgment in Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. The present writ petition was dismissed.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of increased retirement age in accordance with the judgment in Dev Sharma (supra) and the Government order dated 19th August, 2019.
Ratio Decidendi: The Division Bench judgment clarified that the benefit of paragraph 72 of the judgment in Dev Sharma (supra) would be available only to those who had not crossed 60 years of age as on 31st January, 2009. The benefit was also extended 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 31st January, 2019.
Final Decision: The present writ petition along with pending application was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. - Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to set aside/quash the letters dated 15.01.2020, 17.10.2020, 5.11.2020, 11.11.2020, 05.02.2021, 09.02.2021 marked as Annexure P-7, Annexure P-8 Annexure P-9, Annexure P-10, Annexure P-11, Annexure P-12 Respectively.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions directing the respondents to treat the age of superannuation of petitioners as 60 years and thereby grant them retrial/financial benefits in terms of paragraph 72 of judgment dated 31.01.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (C) NO.1951/2012 titled as "Dev Shanna Vs. Union of India & Ors.".
c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions directing the concerned respondents for re-fixing the pension of the petitioners after granting the retirement benefit as mentioned under the office order dated 19th august 2019, bearing no. F.N.45020/1/2019/legal-I, issued by the government of India through ministry of home affairs;
d. Pass any such other orders as it may deem fit to this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The relevant portions of the two impugned orders dated 5th February 2021 and 9th February 2021 are reproduced herein below:
A. Memorandum dated 05th February, 2021
"In this regard, it is informed that Ministry of Home Affairs vide Order No.F.N. 45020/12019/Legal-I dated 17.12.2020 (order is also available in the MHA's website) received through FHQ SSB New Delhi vide OM No.I/81/2012/SSB/Pers-V (Org)(136) 5805-40 dated 28.12.2020 has clarified that -
a) The benefits of enhancement in the age of retirement as granted vide para-72 of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 31.01.2019 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1951/2012 in the matter of I Dev Sharma and Ors V. UOI, would be available to all those in CAPFs who had retired prior to 31.01.2019 provided that they had not crossed the age of 60 years as on 31.01.2019.
b) The benefits already extended vide para 2(c) of this Ministry's order ibid dated 19.08.2019 to the petitioners in the Dev Sharma's matter (supra) shall not be disturbed.
Hence, as all above retirees have already crossed the age of 60 years before 31.01.2019 and they are not eligible for benefits of enhancement in the age of retirement of 60 years. For information please."
B. Letter dated 09th February, 2021 (Annexure 12)
"With reference to your letter, dated 18.12.2020 regarding Grant of pensionary / retired benefits on completion of 60 years as per Hon'ble High Court judgment dated 31.01.2019.
As per concluding para of judgment of Hon'ble High Court, pensioner/retirement benefits is admissible only those CAPFs who retired prior to 31.01.2019 provided they not crossed the age of 60 years as on 31.01.2019. Keeping view of above direction, the benefits is not admissible to you."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are similarly situated as the petitioners in the case of Dev Sharma vs. ITBP & Anr., W.P. (C) No. 1951/2012. He submits that the action of respondents of not treating the age of superannuation of petitioners as 60 years and not granting them retiral/financial benefits in terms of paragraph 72 of judgment in Dev Sharma (supra) is unjust and arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Paragraph 72 of the said judgement is reproduced herebelow:
"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. I
Benefits of enhanced retirement age apply only to personnel who retired prior to the set date and were below the age limit at that time, affirming equality under the law.
Eligibility for retirement benefits hinges on age criteria established by precedent; those exceeding the age limit before a specified date are disqualified.
Uniform retirement age for all members of the CAPFs and entitlement to retirement benefits based on the differential period.
The court ruled that pension benefits related to age of superannuation can be applied only to those below the age limit established in prior case law, reinforcing the validity of previous judicial de....
The entitlement to the benefit of a judgment is limited by subsequent clarifications and specific criteria, and a writ petition cannot be used to challenge previous judgments on grounds of being arbi....
Judgment benefits for extending retirement age apply only to those who had not exceeded age 60 at the time of the ruling; exceeding this age prior to the ruling disqualifies claim to benefits.
The right to receive pension as property under article 300(a) of the Constitution of India and the State's obligation to release retiral dues.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
