Himanshu Gautam, Mr. Kishan Gautam, Ms. Anuradha Pandey, Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advs v. UNION OF INDIA ORS

Judgment

1. The petitioners call into question the constitutionality of Rule Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 3 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33 20(1) and 20(2)1 of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 19862, which provide that, in the Indian Coast Guard3, officers of the rank of Commandant and below would retire at 57, whereas officers above the rank of Commandant would retire at 60.

2. We may note, at the outset, that, following the judgement of a coordinate Division Bench of this Court in Dev Sharma v Indo Tibetan Border Police4, this distinction in the age of retirement of officers upto the level of Commandant and above the level of Commandant no longer survives. All officers retire at 60. The Special Leave Petition and, thereafter, the Review Petition, preferred by the Union of India against the judgment in Dev Sharma stand dismissed by the Supreme Court.

3. The decision in Dev Sharma, though it covered all paramilitary forces including the Central Reserve Police Force5, Indo Tibetan Border Police6, Border Security Force7, Central Industrial Security Force8, Sashastra Seema Bal9 and even the Assam Rifles and all Central Armed Police Forces10, did not expressly extend to the Coast Guard, as the Coast Guard, though also a paramilitary force, is not a CAPF. 1 20. Retirement – (1) sixty years and for officers of other ranks it shall be fifty-seven years. (2) Retirement age of enrolled persons shall be fifty seven years. Retirement age for officers holding a rank higher than that of a Commandant shall be 2 “the 1986 Rules” hereinafter 3 “Coast Guard” hereinafter 4 (2019) 174 DRJ 98 (DB) 5 CRPF 6 ITBP 7 BSF 8 CISF 9 SSB 10 “CAPFs” hereinafter Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 4 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33

4. It is thus that the disparity in age of superannuation survives, in the case of the Coast Guard. Facts

5. The petitioners in these writ petitions are retired officers of the Coast Guard. All of them were, however, in service at the time when the writ petitions were filed. They all have been retired at the age of 57 in accordance with Rules 20(1) and 20(2) of the 1986 Rules. Rule 20 provides that officers up to the rank of Commandant in the Coast Guard would retire at the age of 57 whereas officers above the rank of Commandant would retire at 60. Rule 20(2), similarly, provides that “enrolled persons” in the Coast Guard would retire at the age of 57. “Enrolled person” is defined, in Section 2(k) of the Coast Guard Act, 1978, as meaning “a subordinate officer, sailor or other person enrolled under this Act”.

6. The petitioners assail the constitutionality of Rule 20 (1) and (2) of the 1986 Rules. They plead that the retirement of officers above the rank of Commandant at 60 and other officers at 57 results in invidious and unconstitutional discrimination, which cannot sustain the scrutiny of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

8. There is some history to this litigation. A similar dispute, involving officers of the BSF, CRPF, ITBP Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 5 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33 and SSB was decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Dev Sharma. The Division Bench of this Court held the prescription, in the concerned rule in that case, of a higher age of superannuation for officers above the rank of Commandant and the lower age of superannuation for officers upto the rank of Commandant, to be unconstitutional. The Rule was accordingly struck down. In paras 113 and 114 of the report, the Division Bench has directed that its judgment be implemented across all CAPFs, without requiring individual petitioners to approach the Court.

9. The Coast Guard, we may note here, is not a CAPF.

10. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the UOI against the judgment of the Division Bench in Dev Sharma was dismissed by the Supreme Court in limine on 10 May 2019. A review petition, preferred thereagainst, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16 July

11. Relying on the decision of this Court in Dev Sharma, certain officers of the BSF and the CRPF approached the High Court of Madras in certain writ petitions, challenging the Rule applicable in their case with respect to superannuation of officers of the rank of

Commandant and below. Following the judgment of this Court in Dev Sharma, the High Court of Madras, by judgment dated 18 July 2019, allowed the said writ petitions. However, by judgment dated 10 March 2020 in Review Application 156/2019 – instituted by the UOI – the judgment dated 18 July 2019 was reviewed and the UOI was Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 6 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33 permitted to consider whether parity in the age of superannuation could be granted to officers upto the rank of Commandant and above the rank of Commandant in the Coast Guard, at 60 years, noting the fact that it was a para military force performing functions similar to the CRPF, ITBP and BSF.

12. Purportedly in compliance with the order passed in the Review Application, the Ministry of Defence11 issued order dated 21 July 2020, rejecting the claim for parity in retirement age between officers of the rank of Commandant and below, and officers above the rank of Commandant, in the Coast Guard. By judgment dated 23 November 2023, rendered in WP 415/2021 and connected petitions, the High Court of Madras held that the decision dated 21 July 2020 was not in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment dated 10 March 2020 in Review Application 156/2019 and, therefore, directed the respondents to re-consider the matter and pass a fresh order.

13. In purported compliance with the judgment of the High Court of Madras, the Coast Guard Headquarters has issued a fresh order dated 20 May 2024, again reiterating that it was not possible to equalize the age of superannuation of officers upto the rank of Commandant in the Coast Guard with the age of superannuation of officers above the rank of Commandant.

14. That order dated 20 May 2024 is subject matter of challenge in 11 “MOD”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 7 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33 WP (C) 7579/202412. The issue in controversy

15. It is in this backdrop that these writ petitions have to be decided. Clearly, the only issue before the Court is whether Rule 20 of the 1986 Rules, to the extent it fixes 57 as the age of superannuation for officers upto the rank of Commandant, and 60 as the age of superannuation for officers above the rank of Commandant, is, or is not, legally sustainable. A preliminary observation

16. One of the principal contentions of the petitioners is that the issue is no longer res integra, as it is covered by the judgment in Dev Sharma. This submission is obviously incorrect. The Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, in its judgment dated 10 March 2020 in Review Application 156/2019 has clearly held that the aspect of differential ages of superannuation of officers up to the rank of Commandant, and above the rank of Commandant, in the Coast Guard, is not covered by the decision in Dev Sharma. We, too, agree, as the Division Bench, in Dev Sharma, was concerned with the situation obtaining in the CAPFs. The judgment in the review application, in fact, also goes to the extent of doubting the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dev Sharma. 12 Jitender Jit Singh Jamwal v UOI & Ors. Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 8 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33

17. In any event, we cannot blindly rely on the decision in Dev Sharma as covering the issue in controversy.

18. Of the petitioners in these writ petitions, Cheeli J. Ratnam was a Pradhan Adhikar, whereas AVW Rao and Jitender Jit Singh Jamwal were Commandants. By operation of Rule 20 of the 1986 Rules, they all retired at the age of 57.

19. Proceedings before the High Court of Kerala – V. Thulasi Nair

19.1 We may, at this stage, advert to a judgment dated 30 January 2015, passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala in V. Thulasi Nair v Chief of the Army Staff13. The petitioner, in that case was, a retired officer of the Assam Rifles. He petitioned the High Court aggrieved by non-extension to him, and other retired personnel of the Assam Rifles, of the benefit of the Ex-servicemen Contributory Health Scheme14. The dispute in that case may not be of particular significance for us. Suffice it to note that para 13 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge, observed that the Special Frontier Forces15 and the Coast Guard were Paramilitary Forces of India. The petitioner contends, based on this finding of the High Court of Kerala that the ICG is also a Paramilitary Force.

19.2 The judgment of the High Court of Kerala was challenged by the Chief of Army Staff and the UOI by way of WA 709/2015, which 13 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 4004 14 “ECHS”, hereinafter 15 “SFF”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 9 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33 was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala by judgment dated 10 August 2017. The Division Bench, too, in its judgment, observed that the Coast Guard and the SFF were not part of the Armed Forces but were central Paramilitary Forces.

19.3 SLP (C) Diary No.1044/2018, preferred by the Union of India UOI, against the aforesaid judgment dated 10 August 2017, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala was dismissed by the Supreme Court in limine on 9 February 2018.

19.4 All that emerges from these decisions, to the extent they are relevant for our purpose, is, therefore, the proposition that the Coast Guard is a Paramilitary Force.

20. Recommendations of the 7th CPC and Resolution dated 25 July 2016 of the Ministry of Finance

20.1 In the Central Industrial Security Force16 and the Assam Rifles, the position was as it exists today in the Coast Guard. In other words, officers of the rank of Commandant and below used to retire at the age of 57, whereas the officers above the rank of Commandant used to retire at the age of 60.

20.2 The issue of whether this discrepancy the age of superannuation of officers of the rank of Commandant and below vis- (cid:224)-vis officers above the rank of Commandant, could continue in the CRPF, BSF, ITBP and SSB, when there was no such discrepancy in 16 “CISF”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 10 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33 the CISF and Assam Rifles, was taken up for consideration by the 7th Central Pay Commission17. Before the 7th CPC, it was contended that the duties of officers in the CAPFs like ITBP and BSF were, functionally more akin to the Army, as they were generally deployed for internal security duties, counter insurgency operations or at the border, at high altitudes and in difficult terrains. It was advisable, therefore, that officers of the rank of Commandant and below were not continued beyond the age of 57 years, whereas officers above the rank of Commandant generally performed duties which were more supervisory in nature, justifying a higher age of superannuation.

20.3 The 7th CPC, by a majority of two members to one, opined that the age of superannuation for all officers in the CRPF, ITBP, BSF and SSB were, like the CISF and the Assam Rifles, required to be the same, irrespective of the rank of the officers concerned. In other words, the 7th CPC, by majority, advocated equating the ages of superannuation of officers of the rank of Commandant and below with officers above the rank of Commandant at 60 years in the CRPF, ITBP, BSF and SSB.

20.4 The Ministry of Finance after perusing the report dated 19 November 2015 of the 7th CPC, resolved, however, vide Resolution dated 25 July 2016 that, till a decision was taken by the Government on administrative issues pertaining to uniformity in the retirement age for all ranks in the CAPFs, status quo would be maintained. 17 “CPC”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 11 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33

21. Judgment of this Court in Dev Sharma

21.1 Eight members of the CRPF, ten members of the ITBP and one member of the BSF together petitioned this Court in a batch of writ petitions, which came to be decided by judgment in Dev Sharma, dated 31 January 2019.

21.2 All the petitioners before this Court in Dev Sharma were officers of the rank of Commandant and below. Their prayer was the same as the prayer of the petitioners in the present case, i.e., that the age of superannuation of officers of the rank of Commandant and below in the CRPF, ITBP and BSF be enhanced to 60, at par with the age of superannuation of officers above the rank of Commandant in the said CAPFs.

21.3 By judgment dated 31 January 2019, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petitions and ultimately directed thus: there are bound to be “113. The Court recognises 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.

114. 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 Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 12 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33 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.

115. 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. However, for the purposes of calculation of retiral benefits, including pension and gratuity, the differential period (in the event of enhancement of the retirement age) will be added to period of service actually rendered by each of them. In other words, their notional date of retirement would be arrived at by adding the differential years to their actual date of retirement. On such calculation they would be entitled to the arrears of retirement benefits after adjusting the amount already paid.

21.4 In arriving at the said decision, the Division Bench reasoned as under: (i) While the matter of fixation of age of superannuation was undoubtedly a policy decision, there was no absolute bar on judicial interference in policy decisions. If the policy was plainly discriminatory, the Courts would not hesitate to interfere. (ii) The respective Rules governing the CRPF, BSF and ITBP provided for retirement of officers of the rank of Commandant and below at the age of 57 and of officers above the rank of Commandant at 60 years. The Court was, therefore, was called upon to examine whether this discrepancy could sustain the scrutiny of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 13 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33 (iii) The Court did not accept the submissions of the Union of India that bringing about parity in the retirement age of officers of the rank of Commandant and below with the retirement age of officers above the rank of Commandant would reduce combat effectiveness of the CAPFs. Reliance was placed in this context on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Atul Shukla18. The issue in Atul Shukla also concerned retirement age of Time Scale Promoted Group Captains in the Indian Air Force. The applicable policy provided for retirement of Time Scale Promoted Group Captains at the age of 52 years in the case of Flying Branch Officers and 54 years in the case of Ground Duty Branch Officers. For Group Captains who were promoted on the basis of merit, officers in the Flying Branch retired at the age of 54 years and the officers in the GD Education and Met Branches retired at the age of 57 years. This discrimination was first challenged before the AFT, which upheld the challenge and quashed the decision to have different retirement ages in the rank of Group Captain. The decision of the AFT was challenged before the Supreme Court, which in its judgment in Atul Shukla, upheld the decision of the AFT. (iv) Among the submissions which were advanced before the Supreme Court in Atul Shukla was the contention that parity in the retirement age of Group Captains would reduce combat effectiveness of the IAF. The Supreme Court observed that this 18 (2014) 10 SCC 432 Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 14 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33 submission, as a justification having different ages of superannuation, was “much too tenuous to be accepted as valid base for giving to the Time Scale officers the treatment different from the one given to the Select Officers”. (v) The Division Bench of this Court, in Dev Sharma, relied on Atul Shukla to observe that a Court, before which a challenge to discriminatory ages of superannuation was laid, would examine the basis for the justification provided by the government for the difference in ages of superannuation, and whether such justification was rational or had a nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

21.5 Before the Division Bench, it was contended, by the UOI, thus: (i) Personnel upto rank of Commandant had operational/combat roles in the field, requiring higher physical fitness and efficiency, whereas the duties of personnel of the rank of DIG and above were more supervisory and administrative in nature, not requiring physical fitness of the level required in field units. (ii) The decision to have different ages of retirement was, therefore, a conscious governmental decision, based on ground realities, as per the administrative and operational requirement of the Forces. Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 15 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33 (iii) The work profile of ITBP, BSF and CRPF was akin to the Army, as they were posted at the border, on high altitudes or in difficult terrains, or for internal security and counter insurgency operations.

21.6 The Division Bench found the submissions difficult to accept. It noted that the 7th CPC, before which similar arguments have been put forward had, by a majority of two to one, recommended a uniform age of retirement of personnel in all the CAPFs irrespective of the ranks held by them. This recommendation, being made by an expert body like the 7th CPC, was required to be given due weight by the government.

21.7 The submission that officers of the rank of DIG and above in the BSF, ITBP and CRPF did not perform combat/operational duties and were not required to have the same fitness level as officers below that rank, was not found to be correct on facts. All ranks, from Combatants to ADG19, were required to be in SHAPE-1, as per Rule 6 of the ITBP Force General Duty Cadre (Group-A post) Recruitment Rules, 2010. The Medical Manual applicable to the Forces also required the same tests to be cleared for personnel of the ages of 55 to 60 years.

21.8 The Division Bench, therefore, held that the petitioners before it had made out a case of discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, based on empirical data. The 19 Additional Director General Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 16 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33 difference in ages of superannuation of officers of the rank of Commandant and below, vis-(cid:224)-vis the officers above the rank of Commandant in the ITBP, CRPF, BSF and SSB, was held not to be based on any rational criteria having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, which was keeping high the morale of the CAPFs who were performing yeoman service and supplementing the effect of the Armed Forces and Police throughout the country. It was difficult to conceive of the government, at the centre or at the states, being able to combat serious challenges of safety and security of its people without the participation and the sacrifices made by the members of the CAPFs. The preservation of their morale was, therefore, required to be ensured. Discrimination in the matter of age of retirement, amongst members of two wings of the CAPFs would contribute to lowering their morale rather than bolstering it. Moreover, the 7th CPC, which was an expert body had also favoured enhancement of retirement age.

21.9 Following the above reasoning, the Division Bench held Rule 43(a) of the CRPF Rules, as well as the corresponding Rules applicable to the other CAPFs, which envisaged age of superannuation of 57 for members of the Forces of the rank of Commandant and below and 60 for members of the Forces above the rank of Commandant, to be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

21.10 We have already reproduced, earlier, the concluding paras 113 to 115 of the decision in Dev Sharma. In the said paragraphs, the Division Bench of this Court directed implementation of the judgment Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 17 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33 across the Board to all members of the CAPFs without requiring each of them to approach the Court.

21.11 SLP (C) 11944/201920 preferred by the UOI before the Supreme Court, challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dev Sharma, was dismissed by the Supreme Court, in limine, on 10 May 2019. Review Petition (C) 1555/2019, seeking review of the order dated 10 May 2019, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16 July 2019. 22 MHA Order dated 19 August 2019 Following the dismissal of the SLP and, thereafter, the review petition, preferred by the UOI challenging the judgment of this Court in Dev Sharma, the Ministry of Home Affairs21, proceeded to pass the following order dated 19 August 2019. “F. No.45020/1/2019/Legal-1 Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, (Pers-II Desk, Police II Division) Dated, the 19th Aug, 2019 ORDER WHEREAS, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 1951/2012 in the matter of Dev Sharma, Dy. Comdt. of ITBP Vs UOI & Anr. on 31.01.2019 directed the respondent to arrive at a decision regarding the retirement age which will be uniform for all members of CAPFs, irrespective of the ranks including CISF and 20 UOI v Dev Sharma 21 “MHA” hereinafter Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 18 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33 Assam Rifles at par and also to decide the date from which such change will be effected. However, the Court did not allow stay of the retirement of any personnel as per the existing age of retirement who might have retired before passing the order except that in the event of enhancement of retirement age, the differential period will be added to the period of service actually rendered for the purpose of pension.

02. In view of the aforesaid order, the matter has been examined and in compliance thereof, read with order dated 04.02.2019 passed in WP(C) No.695/2019 titled Ram Chander Kasania & Anr of BSF Vs UOI & Ors, it has been decided by the Competent Authority as under :- a) Age of retirement will be as under Force CRPF, BSF, ITBP, SSB, CISF, AR* *(regular Component) of Paramilitary Irrespective of rank 60 years. b) Date of effect will be the date of issue of order. In respect of all the 29 petitioners as stated in para-02 and c) 03 in common Court order dated 31.01.2019 barring Petitioner No.09 in WP (C) No.4859/2013, relief as granted at para-72 of the order be extended. As regard those whose date of superannuation fell in d) between date of judgment and date of issue of order. (i) Those who have got interim stay will be deemed to have not superannuated and will be governed by age of retirement as at (a) above. (ii) Those who have retired but did not approach any Court will be governed by the Court order dated 04.02.2019 clarifying para-72 of original order dated 31.01.2019 in Dev Sharma case (supra) and hence will be entitled to exercise options either for joining after returning all pensionary benefits, if received or will have an option to have benefit of fitment of pension on completion of age of 60 years.

03. All Forces are directed to comply with the Court orders narrated as above, Forces may amend provisions of Rules as applicable on above line. Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 19 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33 Sd/- (Lalit Kapoor) Deputy Secretary (Pers-II)” 23 WP 11956/2019 and connected writ petitions before the High Court of Madras

23.1 Relying on the decision of this Court in Dev Sharma, certain officers of the BSF and the CRPF approached the High Court of Madras by way of writ petitions, led by WP 11956/201922 challenging the Rule applicable in their case with respect to superannuation of officers of the rank of Commandant and below. They contended, relying on Dev Sharma, that, even in the BSF and the CRPF, there could be no discrimination in the age of superannuation, between officers up to the rank of Commandant and those above the rank of Commandant. Following the judgment of this Court in Dev Sharma, the High Court of Madras allowed the said writ petitions.

23.2 On 18 July 2019, when the said writ petitions, led by WP 11956/2019 instituted by officers of the BSF and the CRPF were heard by the High Court of Madras, WP 29647/201923, instituted by officers of the Coast Guard raising a similar grievance, was not listed before the Court. However, it appears that, thereafter, the High Court was informed that the controversy involved in WP 29647/2019 was identical. Accordingly, the High Court proceeded, in its order dated 18 July 2019, to set aside the distinction in the age of superannuation between officers above the rank of Commandant and officers of the rank of Commandant and below, holding that all officers would be 22 A. Raghavan v Union of India & ors 23 Commdt A.K.S. Panwar v Union of India & ors Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 20 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33 entitled to superannuate at the age of 60. This judgment also decided WP 29647/2019. 24 Review Application 156/2019 before High Court of Madras

24.1 The UOI sought review of the said decision dated 18 July 2019, to the extent it allowed WP 29647/2019, vide Review Application 156/201924. It was contended by the UOI, before the High Court, that officers of the Coast Guard were situated differently from officers of the CAPFs and that, though WP 29647/2019 was not listed before the High Court on 18 July 2019, when other writ petitions filed by the officers of BSF and CRPF were so listed, the High Court had been erroneously told that the issue was the same in respect of the Coast Guard. The UOI contended that the Coast Guard was a Force sui generis, and that considerations which applied to other CAPFs could not mutatis mutandis be made applicable to the Coast Guard. As such, review of the judgment dated 18 July 2019 was sought, to the extent it was made applicable to the Coast Guard.

24.2 Arguing the Review Application, the UOI contended, before the High Court of Madras, that officers of the Coast Guard, till the level of Commandant, spent most of the time at sea, whereas officers above the rank of Commandant primarily performed desk jobs. This, it was submitted, was the consideration which prevailed while fixing the age of superannuation of officers of the rank of Commandant and below at 57 and officers above the rank of Commandant at 60. It was contended 24 Union of India & ors v Commdt A.K.S. Panwar Signature Not Verified WP (C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters Page 21 of 68 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:24.11.2025 13:09:33 that this constituted a valid classification, and did not infract Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that this Court, in its decision in Dev Sharma, did not consider the import of Article 3325 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed, in this context, on para 15 of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ram Sarup v Union of India26, para 19 of Union of India v Ex. Flt Lt G.S. Bajwa27 and Lt. Col. Prithi Lal Singh Bedi v Union of India28.

24.3 By judgment dated 10 March 2020, the High Court of Madras allowed Review Application 156/2019 of the Union of India and modified the direction contained in the judgment dated 18 July 2019, in so far as it applied to the Coast Guard. The Division Bench of the High Court of Madras expressed its agreement with the submission of the Union of India that the decision of this Court in Dev Sharma had not considered the issues raised by it in the Review Application. Inasmuch as WP 29647/2018 was not listed before the High Court on the day when other writ petitions, filed by officers of the CRPF and BSF, were listed and heard, the Union of India was unable to urge the submissions before the Bench. In view of this reasoning, the Division 25 33. Power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by this Part in their application to Forces, etc. – Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part shall, in their application to, - the members of the Armed Forces; or the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order; or persons employed in any bureau or other organisation established by the State for (a) (b) (c) purposes of intelligence or counter intelligence; or (d) purposes of any Force, bureau or organisation referred to in clauses (a) to (c), persons employed in, or in connection with, the telecommunication systems set up for the