J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

CM APPL. 43358/2021[For condonation of delay in filing REVIEW PET. 198/2021] in W.P.(C) 13195/2019

1. The present application has been filed by the Applicant/Mr. Devender Singh Sangwan seeking condonation of delay of 170 days in filing REVIEW PET. 198/2021.

2. For the reasons as stated in the application, the same are allowed. The delay is condoned.

3. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 43383/2021[For condonation of delay in filing REVIEW PET. 199/2021] in W.P.(C) 13195/2019

4. The present application has been filed by the Applicant/Mr. N.S. Gautam seeking condonation of delay of 170 days in filing REVIEW PET. 199/2021.

5. For the reasons as stated in the application, the same are allowed. The delay is condoned.

6. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and CM APPL. 9542/202[For impleadment]

REVIEW PET. 198/2021 in W.P.(C) 13195/2019

REVIEW PET. 199/2021 in W.P.(C) 13195/2019

W.P.(C) 2405/2020

W.P.(C) 9033/2020

W.P.(C) 9157/2020

W.P.(C) 3467/2021

W.P.(C) 4501/2021 and CM APPL. 13758/2021[For exemption]

W.P.(C) 558/2021 and CM APPL. 1467/2021[For exemption]

W.P.(C) 2145/2023 and CM APPL. 8092/2023[For directions]

W.P.(C) 4226/2022

7. The present batch of Writ Petitions and Review Petitions arises from a common grievance concerning entitlement of personnel of the Central Armed Police Forces (‘CAPFs’), including the Border Security Force (‘BSF’), Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’), Indo Tibetan Border Police (‘ITBP’) and Sashastra Seema Bal (‘SSB’), who retired between the years 2011 and 2016, to consequential pensionary benefits arising out of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 57 years to 60 years, pursuant to directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) 1951/2012, Dev Sharma v. Indo Tibetan Border Police & Anr., and the further proceedings.

8. Since identical questions of fact and law arise, the present Writ Petitions and Review Petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

9. The controversy has its genesis in the long-standing disparity in the age of retirement prevailing within CAPFs. Under Rule 43(a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, and corresponding provisions applicable to other CAPFs, personnel holding the rank of Commandant and below were required to superannuate upon attaining the age of 57 years, whereas officers above the rank of Commandant continued in service till 60 years. In contrast, in forces such as the Assam Rifles (‘AR’) and the Central Industrial Security Force (‘CISF’), personnel across all ranks retired uniformly at the age of 60 years.

10. The aforesaid distinction led to multiple Writ Petitions being instituted before this Court beginning in the year 2012, the lead matter being Dev Sharma (supra). Pertinently, several Petitioners therein had already retired at the age of 57 years during the pendency of Dev Sharma.

11. In Dev Sharma (supra), by a detailed judgment dated 31.01.2019, this Court examined the constitutional validity of the differential retirement ages and held that prescribing two different ages of superannuation within the same force created an impermissible classification and violated the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

12. Consequently, Rule 43(a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, along with analogous provisions governing other CAPFs, was declared unconstitutional and struck down. Therafter, this Court directed the Respondents to take consequential steps for prescribing a uniform retirement age for all CAPF personnel irrespective of rank. Of particular significance were the directions contained in Paragraph Nos.70 to 72 of the Dev Sharma’s judgment. The same have been extracted below:

“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 proce