The Delhi High Court has held that all Indian Coast Guard officers are entitled to retire at the age of 60, quashing rules that required officers of the rank of Commandant and below to superannuate at 57. The court found the differentiation in retirement age to be unconstitutional.
A bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla delivered the ruling on Monday while deciding a batch of petitions filed by retired Coast Guard officers who were in service when they approached the court but were eventually retired at 57 under the existing rules.
The impugned Rule 20(1) and 20(2) of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986 prescribed superannuation at 57 for officers up to the rank of Commandant and 60 for those above. The bench said this classification failed the test of reason and equality under the Constitution.
“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 judgment stated.
The court said the prescription of different ages “cannot sustain scrutiny” under Articles 14 and 16 — provisions guaranteeing equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment. It therefore held that the retirement age of 60 must apply uniformly to Coast Guard officers at every rank.
The petitioners had argued that permitting senior officers to retire at 60 and mandating junior officers to retire at 57 created “invidious and unconstitutional discrimination.” The court agreed with this contention.
While the Central government defended the rule by stating that the Coast Guard is a sea-going service that requires a “young age profile” and medically fit personnel for afloat and aviation platforms, the bench was not persuaded. The judges noted that the government had not demonstrated a rational connection between these justifications and the age distinction drawn between different officer ranks.
The court also recalled that an earlier division bench had struck down similar rules regarding retirement ages across Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) — including BSF, CRPF, ITBP and SSB — and directed implementation without requiring separate petitions. However, the present bench acknowledged that the Coast Guard is not a CAPF, and therefore the earlier ruling did not automatically apply. The court therefore undertook an independent constitutional analysis before striking down the provision.
The ruling ensures that all Coast Guard officers — irrespective of rank — are now entitled to serve until 60, removing what the court has termed an unjustified and discriminatory distinction in superannuation norms.
