Age Eligibility for Resettlement Schemes Must Be Maintained on the Date of Formal Sponsorship

The Appellant, a retired Brigadier of the Indian Army, applied for the "Coal Loading and Transportation Scheme" under a 2013 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Respondents No. 1 and 2

By January 2019, the Appellant had completed all preliminary stages for sponsorship

However, on 20.03.2019, his ESM (Ex-Servicemen) Company was placed "Held in Abeyance" (HIA) due to an interim stay order by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in a case filed by a dis-empanelled co-director, Maj. G. Singh

During the HIA period, the Appellant crossed the prescribed eligibility age of 60 years

Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 exited the 2013 MoU and a revised MoU was proposed

The Appellant challenged his exclusion from the scheme on grounds of overage, but the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition

1. Whether the Appellant has an enforceable right to allotment despite not receiving a formal sponsorship letter before crossing the age threshold

2. Whether the "Held in Abeyance" (HIA) status, caused by third-party litigation, operates to protect the Appellant’s eligibility or arrest the aging process for the purpose of the Scheme

3. Whether the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel apply based on the seniority list and invitation to stakeholder meetings

while the Coal Loading Scheme is a "welfare measure," its eligibility conditions cannot be diluted or rewritten

the principle that "no person can claim equality in illegality"

doctrine of "promissory estoppel," which requires a clear, unambiguous, and specific representation to be enforceable

administrative arrangements like "HIA" do not create "legal fictions" to override statutory or policy-based age limits

The Court reasoned that the completion of preliminary stages does not equate to "sponsorship"; no vested right accrues until a formal sponsorship letter is issued

Since the Appellant was never formally sponsored and crossed the age of 60 before the 2013 MoU was rescinded, he became ineligible by operation of the Scheme's own terms

The Court rejected the argument that the HIA status (stemming from the P&H High Court stay) suspended the age requirement, clarifying that HIA is a mere administrative status quo and not a legal extension of eligibility

Regarding "legitimate expectation," the Court found that general communications regarding seniority and stakeholder meetings did not constitute specific promises to waive age criteria

The Court also noted that since no work was allocated to any ESM between 2019 and 2020, the Appellant suffered no unique discrimination compared to his peers

The final holding affirmed the Single Judge's judgment, stating that no writ of mandamus can be issued to compel a relaxation of policy contrary to the Scheme’s terms. The appeal and pending applications were dismissed with no order as to costs