Begin typing your search...
Private schools seek permanent recognition Retirement row: HC comes to rescue of CRPF personnel
Coming to the rescue of a Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Avadi, locked up in a conflict as to whether the retirement age is 57 years or 60 years, the Madras High Court besides staying the order of the Director General, CRPF, New Delhi, regards the petitioner’s retirement clarified that he should be allowed to continue in service.
D Vincent Thomas, a CRPF commandant, had moved a plea seeking to declare Rule 43(A) of CRPF Rules, 1955, together with corresponding recruitment rules as unconstitutional and discriminatory since it held that “other officers holding posts lower than the Deputy Inspector General shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in the which they attain the age of 57 years.” The plea had also sought for a consequential direction to amend both the rules by enhancing the superannuation age from the present 57 years to 60 years for such other officers, thus ensuring uniformity in the aforesaid rules.
The attention of the court was also drawn to an order of the Delhi High Court, which struck Rule 43 of the CRPF Rules and other incidental Rules to the extent that a member of Central and Allied Police Forces (CAPFs) including the ITBP, BSF and CRPF up to the rank of commandant would retire at 57 years to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
The Delhi HC had held, “The court recognises that there are bound to be implications both organisationally and financially as result of the implementation of this decision. The respondents shall, unless this judgement is further challenged and subjected to any interim order in such proceedings, implement across the board to all members of CAPF.”
However, with central government standing counsel informing the court that the meeting scheduled to discuss the issue has been postponed to March 6, the division bench comprising Justice S Manikumar and Justice Subramonium Prasad refused to accept the submission that till a decision is taken, the petitioner cannot seek for continuation in service beyond the age of 57 years. “Though the decision of the Delhi HC is not binding on other high courts but going through the said order, we are of the view that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for admission of the instant writ petition. We are also of the prima facie view that unless and until the proceedings of DG, CRPF, New Delhi, about the persons who would retire from service in 2017 at 57 years is stayed, the petitioner will be subjected to irreparable loss,” the bench said.