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.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--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