Delhi HC Strikes Down Coast Guard Rules Fixing Lower Superannuation Age for Junior Ranks

The Delhi High Court on Monday invalidated the provisions of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986 that prescribed different retirement ages for officers based solely on rank. The Court held that the rule creating this distinction failed to satisfy constitutional requirements of fairness and equal treatment.

The judgement was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla while deciding a batch of petitions filed by officers of the Indian Coast Guard. The challenges were directed against Rule 20(1) and Rule 20(2) of the 1986 Rules, which required officers holding the rank of Commandant and lower to retire at 57 years of age, while permitting officers above the rank of Commandant to serve until 60.

The petitioners had argued that this scheme violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, asserting that retirement age could not be differentiated without a valid and reasonable basis. They submitted that the distinction was arbitrary and that duties requiring physical endurance or sea deployment were not linked exclusively to any one category of officers.

The Union government defended the rules by claiming that a younger age profile was necessary for posts that involved sea-related tasks, and that issues such as medical suitability, command requirements and career stagnation needed to be considered. It was stated that the existing framework ensured an appropriate balance between experience and operational needs.

After examining the entire record, the Court rejected the government’s justification. The Bench noted that no concrete data had been produced to demonstrate that officers up to the rank of Commandant alone bore the burden of offshore responsibilities. The judges also found that the explanations placed before them were inadequate to sustain a differential age of superannuation.

Expressing its concern over the absence of factual support, the Bench observed:

“We are truly astonished at the reasons adduced for justifying retiring officers above the rank of Commandant at 60 and all other officers and personnel of the Coast Guard at 57. Far from being in the least convincing, let alone realistic, the reasons are not supported by one scintilla of empirical data, placed before us. Vague expressions and exaggerated assumptions have been employed, as if to justify the decision to have disparate ages of retirement at any cost.”

The Court ultimately held that the impugned provisions could not withstand scrutiny under Articles 14 and 16. Concluding that the distinction lacked any constitutionally valid foundation, the Bench ruled:

“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. We hold, therefore, that the age of superannuation of 60 would apply to officers of the Coast Guard at all ranks.”

With this decision, the age of retirement for officers of the Indian Coast Guard stands uniformly fixed at 60 years across all ranks.

Advocates Himanshu Gautam, Kishan Gautam, Anuradha Pandey and Lokesh Sharma represented the petitioners. On behalf of the Union government and other respondents, Senior Panel Counsel Raj Kumar Yadav appeared along with Vaibhav Bhardwaj, Tripti Sinha, Jaswinder Singh, Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Shubhra Parashar and Gokul Atrey.