While setting apart the order of the defence ministry rejecting a plea by Coast Guard members beneath the rank of Commandant in search of enhancement within the retirement age from 57 to 60 years, the Madras High Court requested the Central authorities to rethink its choice.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy gave liberty to the members of the Coast Guard to make such illustration intimately and place related materials earlier than the federal government inside a interval of three and requested the federal government to take a choice on the identical in accordance with the regulation, inside a interval of 4 months therefrom.
The members of the Coast Guard approached the excessive court docket difficult the Constitutional Validity of Rule 20(1) of the Indian Coast Guard Rules 1986. They additionally challenged the order handed by the Ministry of Defense refusing to improve the age of retirement of the Coast Guard up to the extent of commandant from 57 to 60 years.
Notably, as per Rule 20(1) of the Indian Coast Guard Rules 1986, the age of retirement of the members of the Coast Guard up to the cadre of commandant is 57 years and in respect of the Ranks above the commandant is 60 years.
(*60*) to the Delhi High Court judgment in Dev Sharma v Indo Tibetan Border Police and Others (2019), the petitioners argued that in that case, the court docket had elevated the retirement age to 60 for all of the ranks within the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), due to this fact, there was no justification in persevering with the retirement age as 57 for members beneath the rank of Commandant solely in respect of the Coast Guard.
They contended that there was no rationale in differentiating between officers up to the rank of commandant and different increased ranks.
On the opposite hand, the counsel for the federal government argued that the Seventh Pay Commission thought of solely the instances of the opposite paramilitary forces and particularly didn’t contemplate the case of the Coast Guard since there was no request from the Coast Guard to rethink the age.
The counsel submitted that the involved Rule prescribes completely different age limits, contemplating many elements, together with the truth that the companies up to the extent of Commandant have a higher off-shore service and due to this fact there’s justification for prescribing a decrease age restrict.
The ranks above the extent of Commandant and are predominantly administrative in nature and as such the upper age restrict of 60 years is prescribed, he asserted.
At the outset, the excessive court docket held that Article 33 of the Constitution of India was relevant to the moment case, due to this fact, there could be minimal interference by the court docket.
However, it famous that within the impugned authorities order, although the federal government had acknowledged many causes for rejecting the declare of retirement age parity within the Coast Guard Service, there was completely no utility of thoughts by any means relating to the similarity or in any other case with the opposite CAPFs.
Further, relating to the competition that the opposite increased officers are concerned in administrative obligation and personnel up to the rank of commandant are predominantly in offshore duties, the court docket mentioned relying on the scale of the vessel, even the Deputy Inspector General whose retirement age is 60 years, mechanically assumes the rank of Commandant in respect of sure sorts of vessels.
The petitioners had been additionally in a position to exhibit that offshore duties are assigned to the opposite officer cadres additionally, court docket highlighted.
“Thus, it can be seen that the argument relating to the reason mentioned by the respondent relating to younger age profile and suitability for offshore duties has been demonstrated to be doubtful,” due to this fact, held the court docket.
Moreover, the court docket identified that the impugned order didn’t tackle as to whether or not the rank and profile of the opposite CAPFs coated within the Delhi High Court Judgment had been identically located or not.
“It can be seen from the impugned order that nothing has been considered in respect of the similarity or otherwise of the other CAPFs and the implementation in respect of the common age pursuant to the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dev Sharma,” court docket underscored.
Therefore, the court docket requested the petitioners to place earlier than the federal government such supplies as they wished, in order to justify their declare and opined that it’s for the federal government to contemplate the identical and take a name within the matter.
