Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rules Prescribing Different Retirement Ages For Coast Guard Officers Based On Rank In Service Matter, Directs Uniform Retirement Age Of 60 Years
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla on 24 November 2025 declared as unconstitutional Rule 20(1) and Rule 20(2) of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986, which prescribe different ages of superannuation for Indian Coast Guard personnel. Holding that these provisions cannot withstand scrutiny under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the court struck down the clauses fixing retirement at 57 years for officers up to the rank of Commandant and enrolled personnel, while permitting retirement at 60 years for higher ranks, and directed that a uniform age of 60 years apply to all Coast Guard officers. The bench also ordered recalculation of pay and retiral benefits for the retired officers who had challenged the provisions.
The writ petitions were filed by officers of the Indian Coast Guard who were in service when the petitions were instituted, but were subsequently retired at the age of 57 pursuant to Rule 20(1) and Rule 20(2) of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986. Rule 20 provides that officers “of the rank of Commandant and below would retire at 57, whereas officers above the rank of Commandant would retire at 60”, and that “enrolled persons” would also retire at 57.
At the outset, the judgment notes that, following a coordinate Division Bench decision in Dev Sharma v Indo Tibetan Border Police, the distinction in retirement age between officers up to Commandant and those above Commandant “no longer survives” in the paramilitary forces covered there, and the SLP and Review against Dev Sharma stood dismissed by the Supreme Court. The judgment also records that Dev Sharma did not expressly extend to the Coast Guard, as the Coast Guard, “though also a paramilitary force, is not a CAPF”, and that the disparity therefore survived in the Coast Guard.
The petitioners assailed the constitutionality of Rule 20(1) and (2), relying on Dev Sharma, the recommendations of the 7th CPC, and the Kerala High Court decision in Thulasi Nair. It was submitted that the Coast Guard has been treated at par with other paramilitary forces for pay parity from the 4th CPC onwards, and that there was no reasonable justification for continuing the discrepancy in superannuation age in the Coast Guard when it had been equalised in other paramilitary forces.
On behalf of the respondents, reliance was placed on Article 33 of the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions including Ram Sarup, G.S. Bajwa and Prithi Pal Singh Bedi, and it was submitted that the Coast Guard is a sea-going service requiring a young and medically fit profile, with considerations relating to command and control, cadre and career progression.
The Court recorded that “Article 33 empowers Parliament to make laws which can restrict or abrogate the fundamental rights conferred by Part III” and that “the fundamental rights of the members of the Armed Forces can be restricted, but only by a law made by Parliament.”
It further recorded that “the restrictions imposed by Parliament on fundamental rights, as permitted by Article 33, may not amount to complete abrogation or extinguishment” and that “a restriction permitted by Article 33 cannot go to the extent of completely abrogating any fundamental right.”
On the relationship between Article 33 and Article 14, the Court recorded: “Article 14 … is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution” and “cannot be abrogated, even by Parliament.”
The Court then noted: “In fact, therefore, it would be in the interests of ensuring proper discharge of duties by members of the Coast Guard that there is a uniform age of superannuation” and concluded that “Article 33 cannot, therefore, save Rule 20.”
Setting out the Article 14/16 test, the Court stated: “Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India forbid legislation which discriminates between persons similarly situated, unless there is an intelligible differentia between them, which bears a rational nexus to the object of the legislation.” It added that, to examine validity, the Court has to address: “(i) Does the legislation discriminate between persons similarly situated? (ii) Is there any intelligible differentia between such persons? (iii) What is the object of the legislation? (iv) Does the intelligible differentia have a rational nexus to the object of the legislation?”
On similarity, it recorded: “The answer has obviously to be in the affirmative” and that the two groups “are all members of the Coast Guard and are, therefore, similarly situated.” On nexus, it held: “No such rational nexus, to our mind, is apparent from the order dated 20 May 2024 or even the subsequent order dated 2 December 2024” and “Not one of them has any connection with the needs and requirements of the Coast Guard.”
Finally, it concluded: “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 of India.”
“Resultantly, 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 Court further directed that “the age of superannuation of 60 would apply to officers of the Coast Guard at all ranks.”
As the petitioners had “already stand superannuated at the age of 57” only due to Rule 20, the Court directed that they “would be entitled to be treated as having continued in service till the age of 60, and to the pay of the post held by them at the time of their retirement for a further period of three years,” including “any increments or pay refixation benefits” during that period, and that “Their retiral benefits would also be recomputed accordingly.”
The Court ordered that “Differential payments” arising from the decision “would be disbursed by the respondents within 12 weeks from the date of uploading of this judgment on the website of this Court,” and that “The writ petitions stand allowed in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Himanshu Gautam, Mr. Kishan Gautam, Ms. Anuradha Pandey, Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Senior Panel Counsel along with Mr. Vaibhav Bhardwaj, Ms. Tripti Sinha, Advocates; Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate; Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Gokul Atrey, Advocates.
Case Title: Cheeli J Ratnam & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:10356-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 6028/2021 and other connected matters (including W.P.(C) 9496/2020 and W.P.(C) 7579/2024).
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla.
