Personnel Crossing Age Sixty Before January 31, 2019, Ineligible for Enhanced Superannuation Benefits

The petitioners are retired personnel of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), including the BSF, CRPF, ITBP, and SSB, who superannuated between 2011 and 2016

Historically, personnel below the rank of Commandant in these forces retired at 57, while higher ranks retired at 60—a disparity challenged in Dev Sharma v. ITBP (2019)

In Dev Sharma, the Delhi High Court struck down the differential retirement ages as violative of Article 14 and directed a uniform retirement age of 60

Paragraph 72 of that judgment granted retired petitioners notional service benefits for pension calculations but denied back wages under the "no work, no pay" principle

Subsequently, in Bharat Singh v. Union of India, the Court clarified that these benefits applied only to personnel who had not crossed 60 years of age as of 31.01.2019

The present petitioners, having retired well before 2016, had already crossed 60 years of age by the cut-off date of 31.01.2019

1. Whether CAPF personnel who retired and crossed the age of 60 years prior to 31.01.2019 are entitled to consequential pensionary benefits arising from the uniform enhancement of the superannuation age

2. Whether the principle of "no work, no pay" and the delay in challenging retirement orders preclude the grant of notional financial benefits

The court primarily applied the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India to address the discriminatory retirement ages

It relied on the doctrine of "no work, no pay," which establishes that monetary benefits are premised upon the actual discharge of duties unless a specific judicial direction creates an exception

The court further applied the binding precedents of Dev Sharma v. ITBP [para. 11], Bharat Singh v. Union of India [para. 21], and Rajender Singh v. Union of India [para. 22], which collectively established that notional service benefits are restricted to those who had not crossed the age of 60 as of 31.01.2019.

The Court reasoned that the petitioners' claims were squarely hit by the limiting criteria established in Bharat Singh and Rajender Singh

It was observed that while the Dev Sharma judgment aimed at organizational uniformity, it explicitly drew a line regarding retrospective financial benefits

Since the petitioners had already crossed the age of 60 by 31.01.2019, they fell into a category of retirees that the Court had previously determined to be ineligible for notional service increments

The Court further noted that the petitioners had accepted their superannuation between 2011 and 2016 without challenge at the relevant time

Applying the "no work, no pay" doctrine, the Court held that granting notional benefits to those who had been out of service for several years without a specific judicial mandate would run contrary to established service jurisprudence

The Court concluded that the issue was no longer res integra and was concluded by coordinate bench decisions

Consequently, the batch of Writ Petitions and Review Petitions was dismissed