Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
Om Prakash Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. superannuation age increase to 60 years (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. delay in implementation affects petitioners (Para 5) |
| 3. principle of 'no work, no pay' applicable (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. petitioners accepted superannuation quietly (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. no refund of returned pensionary benefits (Para 9) |
| 6. petition dismissed for lack of merit (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
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) t
The principle of 'no work, no pay' applies, denying pay to petitioners for the period between superannuation and re-joining as they did not challenge their superannuation.
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.
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....
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's decision emphasized the importance of the Ministry of Home Affairs making a decision on the regularization issue without being influenced by any observation made by the court.
The court held that Fundamental Rule-54 does not apply to a superannuated employee, directing the Ministry to determine pay eligibility for the intervening period.
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.
Class IV servants engaged part-time/daily wages prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after retire at 60 years based on engagement date; retrospective notional benefits for pension to those retired ear....
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
