Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court directed the Union of India and its authorities to grant the Senior Time Scale (STS) benefits to the petitioners, treating their service as continuing until the age of 60 years instead of 57 years. The court held that denying the STS benefits while granting increments created an artificial distinction. The government was ordered to modify the petitioners’ pension calculations accordingly within twelve weeks.
The STS benefits would be granted only notionally, meaning that they would count for pension calculation purposes, but the petitioners would not receive any additional salary arrears.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners were officers in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and had superannuated at the age of 57 years. However, a series of legal developments changed the retirement age for paramilitary officers:
- In Dev Sharma v. Indo Tibetan Border Police & Ors. (2019), the Delhi High Court ruled that retiring paramilitary officers at 57 years was discriminatory.
- The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling by dismissing the government’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) and subsequent Review Petition.
- Based on this, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued an order on 19.08.2019 extending the retirement age of paramilitary officers, including CRPF personnel, to 60 years.
As a result:
- The petitioners were granted notional increments and their pension was revised as if they had served until 60 years of age.
- However, the authorities denied them the Senior Time Scale (STS) benefits, arguing that they did not complete four years of service in the Junior Time Scale, which was a prerequisite for STS.
The petitioners relied on the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Jai Singh Saharan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which had ruled on an identical issue**.
Issues for Determination
- Whether the petitioners were entitled to Senior Time Scale (STS) benefits, given that their service was deemed to continue until 60 years of age for pension purposes.
- Whether denying the STS benefits while granting increments created an artificial distinction and was discriminatory.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners contended that:
- The issue was already decided in Jai Singh Saharan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., where the Delhi High Court had ruled that once an officer’s service was deemed to continue until 60 years, all consequential benefits must follow.
- Notional increments were granted on the premise that the petitioners’ service was extended, so STS benefits should also be granted.
- The denial of STS benefits while granting increments violated the principles of natural justice and amounted to selective implementation of legal rulings.
Respondents’ Arguments
The Union of India and its authorities opposed the petition, arguing that:
- The Senior Time Scale (STS) was granted only after four years of regular service in the Junior Time Scale.
- Since the petitioners had not completed four years in the Junior Time Scale, they did not meet the eligibility criteria.
- The extension of the retirement age to 60 years for pension purposes did not automatically entitle them to promotion-related benefits like the STS.
- The Jai Singh Saharan judgment did not apply to this case because STS had separate eligibility criteria.
Analysis of the Law
The Senior Time Scale (STS) is governed by Office Memorandums (OMs) dated 04.04.2001 and 06.05.2002, which regulate time-bound promotions based on service duration.
The court analyzed these legal provisions along with previous judgments and observed that:
- The government had already granted increments based on a notional extension of service.
- Since increments were granted as though the petitioners served until 60 years, STS benefits should also be granted.
- The refusal to grant STS benefits contradicted the very basis on which the government had extended their service for pension purposes.
Precedent Analysis
The court referred to previous judgments that set a binding legal precedent for the case.
- Dev Sharma v. Indo Tibetan Border Police & Ors. (2019):
- The Delhi High Court ruled that setting the superannuation age at 57 years for paramilitary officers was discriminatory.
- The Supreme Court upheld this ruling by dismissing the government’s appeal.
- This led to the Ministry of Home Affairs extending the retirement age to 60 years.
- Jai Singh Saharan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2024):
- The Delhi High Court held that once the retirement age was increased to 60 years, all consequential benefits should follow.
- The government could not selectively grant increments while denying other benefits.
- This case directly applied to the petitioners’ situation.
The court concluded that denying the STS benefits created an artificial distinction, violating the principles of equal treatment and non-arbitrariness.
Court’s Reasoning
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, reasoning that:
- Artificial Distinction: The government granted increments on the assumption that service was extended to 60 years. Hence, denying STS benefits created an artificial distinction.
- Consequential Benefits Must Follow: The court held that once an officer’s service is extended notionally, all benefits linked to service continuation must also be granted.
- Selective Implementation is Unacceptable: The government cannot selectively apply court judgments, granting one benefit (increments) but denying another (STS benefits).
- Binding Precedent: The Jai Singh Saharan case had already settled this issue, and the government was bound to follow it.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and directed the Union of India to:
- Treat the petitioners as having superannuated at 60 years.
- Consider their service from 57-60 years as regular service.
- Grant the Senior Time Scale (STS) benefits notionally for pension calculation.
- Modify their pension calculations accordingly.
- Complete this exercise within twelve weeks.
The court clarified that:
- STS benefits would be granted only for pension purposes.
- The petitioners would not receive salary arrears for the notional period.
Implications of the Judgment
- Impact on Other Paramilitary Officers:
- The ruling sets a precedent for other retired CRPF officers who were denied STS benefits despite being given pension increments.
- They can now claim similar benefits based on this judgment.
- No Selective Application of Benefits:
- The government cannot grant one benefit (increments) while denying another (STS benefits).
- The principle of equal treatment must be applied.
- Potential for Further Litigation:
- Officers in similar circumstances may file fresh petitions based on this ruling.
- The government may need to revise its approach to retired paramilitary officers’ benefits.
Conclusion
This judgment strengthens the rights of retired paramilitary officers, ensuring that once their service is notionally extended, all linked benefits must follow. The Delhi High Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that government authorities cannot selectively implement judicial directives, thereby protecting the financial interests of retired officers.