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.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 8524/2021

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 2834/2021

1. Present writ petition has been filed primarily seeking a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of the judgment dated 31st January 2019 passed by this Court in Dev Sharma vs. ITBP & Anr., W.P. (C) No. 1951/2012 to the petitioners by extending their respective dates of retirement to the age of sixty years and consequently recalculating their retiral benefits including pension and gratuity. Petitioners also seek direction to the respondents to add the differential period to the period of service actually rendered by the Petitioners and pay the arrears of retiral benefits and other consequential benefits to the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the Petitioners were appointed as Constable (General Duty) in the ITBP and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation prior to the pronouncement of the judgment in Dev Sharma vs. ITBP & Anr. (supra).

3. He states that identically placed persons as the petitioners challenged Rule 8 (a) of the ITBP General Duty Rules in Group-'A' post rules before this Court in Dev Sharma vs. ITBP & Anr. (supra). He states that this Court vide judgment dated 31st January 2019 stuck down Rule 8 (a) (supra) being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and held that there should be a uniform age of retirement of CAPFs personnel irrespective of rank.

4. He states that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the respondents against the Writ Petition was also dismissed by the Apex Court and the respondents vide circular dated 19th August 2019 implemented the judgment dated 31st January 2019.

5. He emphasises that the petitioners have erroneously been denied the benefit of the said judgement by the respondents on the ground that they had attained the age of sixty years prior to its pronouncement. He further states that the petitioners in the said case, namely, Dev Sharma vs. ITBP & Anr. (supra) had been given benefit under the said judgement even though he had crossed the age of sixty years as on 31st January, 2019. The relevant portion of the judgment in Dev Sharma vs. ITBP & Anr. (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is reproduced hereinbelow:

"70. The Court recognises that there are bound to be implications-both organisationally and financially-as a result of the implementation of this decision. The Respondents shall, unless this judgment is further challenged and subject to any interim order in such proceedings, implement it across the board to all members of the CAPFs without insisting on each of them approaching the Court for identical relief. For that matter, even though the members of the SSB have not yet approached this Court, if they are identically placed as these Petitioners, it should be implemented for them as well.

71. Accordingly a direction is hereby issued that within a period of four months from today the Respondents i.e. the MHA in consultation with the CAPFs concerned will take all consequential steps by way of implementation of this judgment. This will include arriving at a decision as regards the retirement age which will uniform for all members of the CAPFs irrespective of their rank thus bringing all of them, including the CISF and the AR, on par and fixing the date from which such changed retirement age will take effect.

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. Howev