Coast Guard officers to retire at 60: Delhi HC quashes discriminatory rules

The Delhi High Court has struck down rules of the Indian Coast Guard (ICG) setting different retirement ages for different ranks, wherein officers of the rank of Commandant and below retired at the age of 57 years, while senior ranks served till the age of 60. This implies that officers of all ranks and enlisted men in ICG would superannuate at the age of 60.

Allowing a bunch of petitions, a division bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held Rule 20(1) and 20(2)1 of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986 were unconstitutional and unsupported by rational justification. Rule 20(1) concerns officers while Rule 20(2)1 concerns enlisted men below officer rank.

“We hold that the impugned Rule 20(1) and 20(2) of the 1986 Rules cannot sustain scrutiny of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, to the extent they fix the age of superannuation of officers of the rank of Commandant and below, and enrolled persons, at 57. They are, therefore, quashed and set aside,” the bench said in their order of November 24. “We hold, therefore, that the age of superannuation of 60 would apply to officers of the Coast Guard at all ranks,” the bench added.

The bench observed that following an earlier judgement of the high court, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2019, this distinction in the age of retirement of officers up to the level of Commandant and above the level of Commandant in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) no longer survives and all paramilitary officers retire at 60 years.

The bench said that though the judgement covered all paramilitary forces, including the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) and even the Assam Rifles, it did not expressly extend to the Coast Guard, as the Coast Guard, though also a paramilitary force, is not a CAPF.

CAPFs function under the operational and administrative control of the Ministry of Home Affairs, whereas the Coast Guard comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence.

While striking down the relevant provisions governing CAFPs, the high court had directed that its judgment be implemented across all CAPFs, without requiring individual petitioners to approach the court.

The Central Government had averred that lower retirement ages for junior ranks are required because of the need for a younger “sea-going profile”, medical fitness concerns, command and control issues and career stagnation risks, besides age related afflictions and prevalence of lifestyle diseases and factors of complacency and inertia in cases of non-promoted officers continuing on.

The government also contended that the Coast Guard and Indian Navy, being maritime forces, have similar career progression timelines and training requirements and at times are co-deployed. The Coast Guard is availing training facilities of the Navy, resulting in the Coast Guard personnel having been required to conform to the rank and seniority requirement as prescribed by the Navy.

“We are truly astonished at the reasons adduced for justifying retiring officers above the rank of Commandant at 60 and all other officers and personnel of the Coast Guard at 57.  Far from being in the least convincing, let alone realistic, the reasons are not supported by one scintilla of empirical data, placed before us. Vague expressions and exaggerated assumptions have been employed, as if to justify the decision to have disparate ages of retirement at any cost,” the bench observed.

“The Rule has, therefore, necessarily to be struck down,” the bench ruled, while directing that the petitioners, who have since retired, be treated as having continued in service till the age of 60, and be entitled to consequential benefits.