SC ask Centre to setup panel to revisit conditions of coast guard, armed forces

PTI

New Delhi

The Supreme Court has asked the Centre not to remain stuck with British-era criteria on retirement age and service conditions of armed forces personnel, and consider constituting an expert committee to revisit the parameters of “highly skilled” coast guards.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stayed an order of the Delhi High Court, which held that the Indian Coast Guard must have a uniform retirement age of 60 years for all ranks.

CJI Kant told Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, “It is high time that these regulations governing the service conditions and retirement age are reviewed. The government cannot be stuck with the conditions envisaged and drafted in the British era. Nobody these days can imagine the role played by coast guards. The current retirement age appears to follow an old pattern.”

The bench was hearing the Union government’s appeal against Delhi High Court’s order of last year quashing Rule 20(1) and Rule 20(2) of Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986, which provided that officers of rank of commandant and below would retire at the age of 57 years, while those above commandant would retire on attaining 60 years.

The top court observed that experience mattered greatly in such a sophisticated and highly skilled robust force, and the government should not be “too static or conservative” in its approach to service conditions.

The bench ordered, “Issue notice. Meanwhile, operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed till further orders…A counter affidavit may be filed within two weeks. List the matter two weeks thereafter.

“However, we direct the Union to constitute an expert committee to revisit the conditions of service of the coast guard personnel, especially with respect to the age of recruitment to the age of retirement. The report to be submitted to this court,” it said.

Dave contended that the high court erred in comparing coast guards, which comes under the defence ministry, to other forces like the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), and the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB).

She submitted that the working of coast guards is completely different from that of other forces, and they face much harsher conditions at sea, similar to the Navy, which requires a younger workforce.

Dave further argued that if the high court order is not interfered with, it would open a Pandora’s Box, as similar relief will be sought from other branches of the defence forces.

She submitted that the retirement ages in the armed forces were carefully linked to recruitment age to ensure a specific length of service, and these matters fell within the realm of policy.

On November 24, the high court ruled that the retirement age of 60 should be uniformly applied to all the ranks of Indian Coast Guard officers, striking down a rule prescribing different retirement ages for different ranks.

The high court held the rule to be “unconstitutional.”

As per the impugned rule, officers of the rank of commandant and below in the Indian Coast Guard used to retire at the age of 57, whereas officers above the rank of commandant used to retire at 60.

“In the absence of any factor which indicates a rational nexus between fixing of different ages of superannuation for officers of the rank of commandant and below and officers above the rank of commandant in the Coast Guard, we are constrained to hold that Rule 20(1) and 20(2) of the 1986 Rules, insofar as it fixes different ages of superannuation, is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution,” the high court had said in a detailed order.

It had said Rule 20(1) and 20(2) of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986, cannot sustain scrutiny of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and held that the age of superannuation of 60 would apply to officers of the Coast Guard at all ranks.

Article 14 concerns the equality for all individuals before the law, and Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in public employment.

The high court had passed the order on a batch of petitions of retired officers of the coast guard, who were in service at the time of filing of the pleas, but retired at the age of 57 in accordance with the rules.

The retired officers challenged the constitutionality of Rule 20 (1) and (2) and said the retirement of officers above the rank of commandant at 60 and other officers at 57 results in invidious and unconstitutional discrimination.

The high court had noted that earlier, a similar dispute involving officers of the Border Security Force (BSF), CRPF, ITBP and SSB was decided by a division bench of the high court.

The central government had justified the lower retirement age, saying the coast guard is a sea-going service which requires a “young age profile” and medically fit personnel to man afloat and aviation platforms, command and control issues, cadre and career progression.