BALKAR SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A batch of petitions concerning the age of retirement of members of three Central and Allied Forces (CAPFs) which was different up to the rank of Commandant than what was prescribed for the members above the rank of Commandant was filed before the Delhi High Court. To be precise, in all the three CAPFs i.e ITBP, CRPF and BSF, the age of superannuation for the members up to the rank of Commandant is 57 years, whereas the age of retirement for the members above the rank of Commandant is 60 years. The prescription of different age rather lesser age for superannuation provided for the members up to the rank of Commandant in the aforesaid three CAPFs was challenged on the ground that the same results in hostile discrimination against a set of employees, i.e., the members of CAPFs up to the rank of Commandant.

(2.) The Division Bench of Delhi High Court did not find any rationale in the aforesaid classification made for the purpose of superannuation of the members of the aforesaid forces i.e 57 years up to the rank of Commandant and 60 years above the rank of Commandant and, accordingly, struck down Rule 43(a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, Rule 14 of the CRPF Group( A) General Duty Officers Recruitment Rules, 2001, Rule 8(a) of the ITBP General Duty in Group A Posts Rules and Rule 12 of the BSF (General Duty Officers) Recruitment Rules, 2001 to the extent they prescribe retirement age of 57 years for the members of these CPAFs of the rank of Commandant and below. It is Rule 12 of BSF (General Duty Officers) Recruitment Rules 2001 which has been assailed in the present writ petition as well. The grounds taken in the present writ petition are identical to those which were taken by the writ petitioners before the Delhi High Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents concedes that the case of the petitioner is identical to the case which was decided by the Delhi High Court on 31/1/2019.