Dismissed¶28

Ram Prasad Roy and Others v. Union of India and Others

Service law – CAPF pension

Delhi HC15 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/4501/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CAPF superannuation age 57 to 60; Dev Sharma v. ITBP paragraph 72 retiral benefits; Bharat Singh clarification cut-off 31.01.2019; Rajender Singh W.P.(C) 2834/2021; no work no pay doctrine; notional service and pension revision; parity and non-discrimination Articles 14, 16, 21; Rule 43(a) CRPF Rules 1955 struck down; MHA Office Order F.No.45020/1/2019/Legal-I dated 19.08.2019; BSF CRPF ITBP SSB retirees 2011-2016; rejection letters 29.11.2019; review petitions delay condonation 170 days; writ petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the only relief is condonation of the 170-day delay in filing Review Petitions 198/2021 and 199/2021. All Writ Petitions and Review Petitions dismissed, pending applications disposed of. ¶28

Ram Prasad Roy and Others Vs Union of India and Others — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners, though not parties to Dev Sharma (supra), who retired in or before 2016 and had crossed the age of 60 years prior to 31.01.2019, are entitled to the consequential retiral/pensionary benefits of paragraph 72 of Dev Sharma and the order dated 19.08.2019 on the principle of parity and non-discrimination. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

CAPF personnel who retired prior to 2016 and had crossed the age of 60 years as on 31.01.2019 are not entitled to the benefit flowing from paragraph 72 of Dev Sharma (supra) or the Government order dated 19.08.2019.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The distinction drawn in Dev Sharma (as clarified in Bharat Singh and followed in Rajender Singh) between personnel who had not crossed 60 years as on 31.01.2019 and those who had already crossed that age stands concluded by Co-ordinate Bench decisions and cannot be reopened; the Petitioners admittedly fall in the excluded category.

¶26

Key takeaways

Under the 'no work, no pay' doctrine, enhancement of the age of superannuation by itself does not automatically confer retrospective financial benefits upon personnel who had already retired and did not serve during the relevant period.ratio¶24
Having accepted superannuation, not challenged their retirement orders, and remained out of service for several years, the Petitioners cannot claim notional continuation or consequential monetary benefits as though they had remained in service.ratio¶25
The delay of 170 days in filing Review Petitions 198/2021 and 199/2021 is condoned and the condonation applications (CM APPL. 43358/2021 and CM APPL. 43383/2021) are disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - CAPF pension - age of superannuation enhanced from 57 to 60 years pursuant to Dev Sharma v. ITBP, W.P.(C) 1951/2012 (decided 31.01.2019) and MHA Office Order No. F.No.45020/1/2019/Legal-I dated 19.08.2019 - batch of writ petitions and review petitions by BSF/CRPF/ITBP/SSB personnel retired between 2011 and 2016 claiming consequential retiral benefits of paragraph 72 of Dev Sharma on parity. HELD: per the clarification in Bharat Singh, W.P.(C) 13195/2019, and Rajender Singh, W.P.(C) 2834/2021, the benefit of paragraph 72 is confined to personnel who retired prior to 31.01.2019 and had not crossed 60 years as on that date; petitioners, having retired before 2016 and crossed 60 years before 31.01.2019, are excluded; enhancement of retirement age does not automatically confer retrospective monetary benefits ('no work, no pay'); having accepted superannuation without challenge, they cannot claim notional continuation; the issue stands concluded by Co-ordinate Bench decisions. Writ petitions and review petitions dismissed; 170-day delay in filing the review petitions condoned.

¶1

$~70 to 78 and 15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Decision: 15.04.2026

¶3

+	W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and CM CHARANJIT LAL AND ORS	APPL. 9542/2021 . .....Petitioners
	Through: versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS	None. . .....Respondents
	Through:	Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC with Mr. Kautilya Birat, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, Law Officer with
		Insp Athurv and Mr. Ramniwas Yadav CRPF.
(71)
+	W.P.(C) 13195/2019
	BHARAT SINGH & ORS	.....Petitioners
	Through:	Mr. Shanker Raju, Mr. Sanjiv
		Kumar Saxena, Mr. Ramneek
		Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar
	versus	Tiwari, Advs.
	UNION OF INDIA & ORS	.....Respondents
	Through:	Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC with
		Ms.Usha Jamnal, Adv.
(72)
+	W.P.(C) 2405/2020
	RAMAVATAR SHARMA A	ND ORS. .....Petitioners
	Through:	Mr. Vijay Kumar, Mr. Vidhik
	versus UNION OF INDIA AND AN	Kumar, Advs. R. .....Respondents
	Through:	Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC with Mr. Kautilya Birat, Adv.
(73)
+	W.P.(C) 9033/2020
	DEVENDER SINGH SANGW	AN AND ORS .....Petitioners
	Through:	Mr. Shanker Raju, Mr. Sanjiv
		Kumar Saxena, Mr. Ramneek
		Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar

¶4

Signature Not Verified

¶5

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and connected matters Page 1 of 13 Signing Da te:1 8.04.2026 11:31:26

¶6

Tiwari, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC with Ms.Usha Jamnal, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, Law Officer with Insp Athurv and Mr. Ramniwas Yadav CRPF.

¶9

(74)

¶10

+ W.P.(C) 9157/2020
SHRI N.K.S. GAUTAM AND	OTHERS	.....Petitioners
Through:	Mr. Shanker	Raju, Mr. Sanjiv
	Kumar Saxen	a, Mr. Ramneek
	Mishra, Mr.	Mukesh Kumar
versus	Tiwari, Advs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OT	HERS	.....Respondents
Through:	Mr. Amit Ti	wari, CGSC with
	Ms. Ayushi	Srivastava, Mr.
	Ayush Tanw	ar, Mr. Arpan
	Narwal, Mr.	Kushagra Malik,
	Mr.Ujjwal T UOI.	yagi, Advs. for
	Mr. Ajay Pal,	Law Officer with
	Insp Athurv a Yadav CRPF.	nd Mr. Ramniwas

¶11

(75)

¶12

W.P.(C) 3467/2021 ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Mr. Vidhik Kumar, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Meeraj, CGSC with Mr. Soumyadip Chakraborty, Adv.

¶13

(76)

¶14

W.P.(C) 4501/2021 and CM APPL. 13758/2021 RAM PRASAD ROY AND OTHERS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shanker Raju, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Saxena, Mr. Ramneek

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and connected matters Page 2 of 13 Signing Da te:1 8.04.2026 11:31:26

¶17

Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Advs.

¶18

versus

¶19

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: None. (77)

¶20

W.P.(C) 558/2021 and CM APPL. 1467/2021 ASHOK KUMAR BHAT AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shanker Raju, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Saxena, Mr. Ramneek Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, Adv. for UOI. Mr. Ajay Pal, Law Officer with Insp Athurv and Mr. Ramniwas Yadav CRPF.

¶21

(78) + W.P.(C) 2145/2023 and CM APPL. 8092/2023 SUBHASH CHOWDHURY & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shanker Raju, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Saxena, Mr. Ramneek Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. N K Aggarwal, Senior Panel Counsel for UOI. Mr. Ajay Pal, Law Officer with Insp Athurv and Mr. Ramniwas Yadav CRPF.

¶22

(15) + W.P.(C) 4226/2022 K. SIVAKUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Nishant Mankoo, Adv. through V.C.

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and connected matters Page 3 of 13 Signing Da te:1 8.04.2026 11:31:26

¶25

versus

¶26

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Ajay Pal, Law Officer, Insp Athurv & Mr Ramniwas Yadav, CRPF.

¶27

CORAM:

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶29

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶30

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

¶31

CM APPL. 43358/2021 [For condonation of delay in filing REVIEW PET. 198/2021] in W.P.(C) 13195/2019

¶32

The present application has been filed by the Applicant/Mr. Devender Singh Sangwan seeking condonation of delay of 170 days in filing REVIEW PET. 198/2021.

¶33

For the reasons as stated in the application, the same are allowed. The delay is condoned.

¶34

The application stands disposed of.

¶35

CM APPL. 43383/2021 [For condonation of delay in filing REVIEW PET. 199/2021] in W.P.(C) 13195/2019

¶36

The present application has been filed by the Applicant/Mr. N.S. Gautam seeking condonation of delay of 170 days in filing REVIEW PET. 199/2021.

¶37

For the reasons as stated in the application, the same are allowed. The delay is condoned.

¶38

6. The application stands disposed of.

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and connected matters Page 4 of 13 Signing Da te:1 8.04.2026 11:31:26

¶41

W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and CM APPL. 9542/202 [For impleadment] REVIEW PET. 198/2021 in W.P.(C) 13195/2019 REVIEW PET. 199/2021 in W.P.(C) 13195/2019

¶42

W.P.(C) 2405/2020

¶43

W.P.(C) 9033/2020

¶44

W.P.(C) 9157/2020

¶45

W.P.(C) 3467/2021

¶46

W.P.(C) 4501/2021 and CM APPL. 13758/2021 [For exemption] W.P.(C) 558/2021 and CM APPL. 1467/2021 [For exemption] W.P.(C) 2145/2023 and CM APPL. 8092/2023 [For directions] W.P.(C) 4226/2022

¶47

The present batch of Writ Petitions and Review Petitions arises from a common grievance concerning entitlement of personnel of the Central Armed Police Forces (‘CAPFs’), including the Border Security Force (‘BSF’), Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’), IndoTibetan Border Police (‘ITBP’) and Sashastra Seema Bal (‘SSB’), who retired between the years 2011 and 2016, to consequential pensionary benefits arising out of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 57 years to 60 years, pursuant to directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) 1951/2012, Dev Sharma v. IndoTibetan Border Police & Anr. , and the further proceedings.

¶48

Since identical questions of fact and law arise, the present Writ Petitions and Review Petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶49

The controversy has its genesis in the long-standing disparity in the age of retirement prevailing within CAPFs. Under Rule 43(a) of

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and connected matters Page 5 of 13 Signing Da te:1 8.04.2026 11:31:26

¶52

the CRPF Rules, 1955, and corresponding provisions applicable to other CAPFs, personnel holding the rank of Commandant and below were required to superannuate upon attaining the age of 57 years, whereas officers above the rank of Commandant continued in service till 60 years. In contrast, in forces such as the Assam Rifles (‘AR’) and the Central Industrial Security Force (‘CISF’), personnel across all ranks retired uniformly at the age of 60 years.

¶53

The aforesaid distinction led to multiple Writ Petitions being instituted before this Court beginning in the year 2012, the lead matter being Dev Sharma (supra) . Pertinently, several Petitioners therein had already retired at the age of 57 years during the pendency of Dev Sharma .

¶54

In Dev Sharma (supra) , by a detailed judgment dated 31.01.2019, this Court examined the constitutional validity of the differential retirement ages and held that prescribing two different ages of superannuation within the same force created an impermissible classification and violated the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶55

Consequently, Rule 43(a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, along with analogous provisions governing other CAPFs, was declared unconstitutional and struck down. Therafter, this Court directed the Respondents to take consequential steps for prescribing a uniform retirement age for all CAPF personnel irrespective of rank. Of particular significance were the directions contained in Paragraph Nos.70 to 72 of the Dev Sharma ’s judgment. The same have been

¶56

Signature Not Verified

¶57

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and connected matters Page 6 of 13 Signing Da te:1 8.04.2026 11:31:26

¶58

extracted below:

¶59

“70. The Court recognises that there are bound to be implicationsboth organisationally and financially - as a result of the implementation of this decision. The Respondents shall, unless this judgment is further challenged and subject to any interim order in such proceedings, implement it across the board to all members of the CAPFs without insisting on each of them approaching the Court for identical relief. For that matter, even though the members of the SSB have not yet approached this Court, if they are identically placed as these Petitioners, it should be implemented for them as well.

¶60

71. Accordingly a direction is hereby issued that within a period of four months from today the Respondents i.e. the MHA in consultation with the CAPFs concerned will take all consequential steps by way of implementation of this judgment. This will include arriving at a decision as regards the retirement age which will uniform for all members of the CAPFs irrespective of their rank thus bringing all of them, including the CISF and the AR, on par and fixing the date from which such changed retirement age will take effect .

¶61

72. The Court clarifies that this judgment will not have the effect of reinstatement of the Petitioners who have already retired. In view of the principle of “no work, no pay”, it will also not have the effect of their being entitled to any arrears of pay for any further period beyond their retirement. However, for the purposes of calculation of retiral benefits, including pension and gratuity, the differential period (in the event of enhancement of the retirement age) will be added to period of service actually rendered by each of them. In other words, their notional date of retirement would be arrived at by adding the differential years to their actual date of retirement. On such calculation they would be entitled to the arrears of retirement benefits after adjusting the amount already paid.”

¶62

(Emphasis supplied.)

¶63

Thereafter, the Ministry of Home Affairs (‘MHA’), Government of India, issued Office Order No. F.No.45020/1/2019/Legal-I dated 19.08.2019, whereby the age of superannuation for all CAPF personnel was fixed uniformly at 60 years.

¶64

Pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 19.08.2019 enhancing the age of superannuation to 60 years, the Respondents

¶65

Signature Not Verified

¶66

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and connected matters Page 7 of 13 Signing Da te:1 8.04.2026 11:31:26

¶67

issued further implementation and clarificatory orders governing the manner in which consequential benefits were to be extended to retired personnel of the CAPFs.

¶68

By order dated 11.09.2019, applicable inter alia to BSF personnel, the Respondents restricted the benefit of exercising option for rejoining service or grant of three additional increments only to those personnel who had retired between 31.01.2019 and 19.08.2019. Similar communications issued thereafter clarified that personnel who had already retired prior to the implementation order would not be entitled to reinstatement, and pensionary benefits would be regulated in terms of the conditions specified therein.

¶69

Several Petitioners submitted representations seeking extension of notional service benefits and revision of pension on the ground that they had not attained the age of 60 years as on 31.01.2019. These representations came to be rejected through individual communications, including rejection letters dated 29.11.2019 and other similarly worded orders.

¶70

Aggrieved by the restrictive implementation of the judgment in Dev Sharma (supra) and alleging discrimination amongst similarly situated CAPF pensioners, the Petitioners instituted the present batch of Writ Petitions challenging the aforesaid orders and seeking extension of consequential retiral and pensionary benefits at par with those already granted such relief.

¶71

The Petitioners herein claim to be identically situated to the Petitioners in Dev Sharma (supra) and contend that denial of similar

¶72

Signature Not Verified

¶73

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and connected matters Page 8 of 13 Signing Da te:1 8.04.2026 11:31:26

¶74

consequential benefits amounts to selective implementation of the said judgment, resulting in discrimination amongst similarly placed CAPF pensioners in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶75

The Respondents, on the other hand, justify the impugned actions on the ground that benefits flowing from the earlier judgment does not extend to the present Petitioners, and that the Petitioners, having already superannuated prior to the judgment in Dev Sharma (supra) , cannot claim automatic extension of benefits absent an express direction of the Court or policy decision of the Government.

¶76

In the aforesaid backdrop, the present batch of Writ Petitions requires this Court to determine whether the Petitioners, though not parties to the earlier litigation, are entitled to claim extension of benefits granted pursuant to Dev Sharma (supra) and subsequent orders, on the principle of parity and non-discrimination.

¶77

In Bharat Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , W.P.(C) 13195/2019, this Court clarified the scope and applicability of the directions issued in Dev Sharma (supra) and delineated the category of personnel entitled to consequential benefits arising from enhancement of the age of superannuation. The Court held that while the benefit of the judgment in Dev Sharma was intended to operate across the CAPFs, such benefit would be available only to those personnel who had retired prior to 31.01.2019 and had not crossed the age of 60 years as on that date. The Court rejected the contention of the Respondents that relief was confined only to the original

¶78

Signature Not Verified

¶79

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and connected matters Page 9 of 13 Signing Da te:1 8.04.2026 11:31:26

¶80

Petitioners and directed that similarly situated personnel need not independently approach the Court to claim parity. The relevant observations are extracted below:

¶81

“9. It requires to be acknowledged that the Respondents have accepted part of the above directions by making the order dated 19th August, 2019 applicable across the board to all CAPFs, including SSB, the personnel of which were not before the Court. Having done so, it does not stand to reason that the Respondents should confine the benefit of paragraph 72 of the judgment in Dev Sharma (supra) and batch only to the 'Petitioners' in those cases, and not to all persons across the board in all CAPFs who had retired prior to 31st January, 2019 and who had not crossed 60 years as of that date.

¶82

10. It requires to be clarified that the benefit of paragraph 72 of the judgment of this Court in Dev Sharma (supra) will be available only to those who had not crossed 60 years of age as on 31 January, 2009. It is further clarified that the present order will not disturb the benefit already extended in terms of para 72 of that judgment and in terms of Para 2 (c) of the order dated 19th August 2019 to any of the Petitioners in the Dev Sharma batch, who may have crossed the age of 60 years as on 31 January 2019.

¶83

11. A direction is accordingly issued to the Respondents to extend to the present Petitioners, and anyone else who is similarly placed but has not come to the Court or not yet made a representation to the Respondents, the benefit of paragraph 72 of the order of this Court . In other words, the benefit of para 2 (c) of the order dated 19th August, 2019 would be available to all those in the CAPFs who retired prior to 31st January 2019 provided that they had not crossed the age of 60 years as on 31 January, 2019. ”

¶84

(Emphasis supplied.)

¶85

The position was subsequently reiterated and applied by this Court in Rajender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , W.P.(C) 2834/2021, wherein the Court, after considering Dev Sharma (supra) and the clarifications issued in Bharat Singh (supra) , held that personnel who had already crossed the age of 60 years as on 31.01.2019 would not be entitled to the benefit of continuation in service or consequential financial advantages.

¶86

Signature Not Verified

¶87

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and connected matters Page 10 of 13 Signing Da te:1 8.04.2026 11:31:26

¶88

Admittedly, the present Petitioners had retired in or before the year 2016 and had crossed the age of 60 years prior to 31.01.2019. Their claim is, therefore, squarely covered by the ratio of Rajender Singh (supra) . The relevant extract reads as under:

¶89

“10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Division Bench which pronounced the judgment in Dev Sharma vs. ITBP (Supra) had itself subsequently clarified in Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Supra) that the judgment in Dev Sharma vs. ITBP (Supra) as well as that of the Government order dated 19th August, 2019 would be applicable to those in the CAPFs, who had not crossed the age of sixty years as on 31st December, 2019. Since the petitioners had crossed the age of sixty years prior to 31st January, 2019, they would not be entitled to the benefit in accordance with the Division Bench judgment in Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Supra). Consequently, the issue raised in the present writ petition is not res integra. Further, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition cannot be used to challenge coordinate Division Bench’s judgments in Dev Sharma vs. ITBP (Supra) and Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Supra) on grounds of being arbitrary and/or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.”

¶90

Apart from the above, it is a settled principle of service law that payment of salary and attendant monetary benefits is ordinarily premised upon actual discharge of duties. The doctrine of “no work, no pay” embodies the equitable principle that an employee who has not rendered service cannot claim wages or service benefits for a period during which he was not in employment, unless a specific judicial direction creates such entitlement. The enhancement of the age of superannuation, by itself, does not automatically confer retrospective financial benefits upon personnel who had already retired and did not serve during the relevant period.

¶91

It is equally significant that the Petitioners did not challenge

¶92

Signature Not Verified

¶93

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and connected matters Page 11 of 13 Signing Da te:1 8.04.2026 11:31:26

¶94

their retirement orders at the relevant time nor sought continuation in service when the issue of enhancement of retirement age was sub judice before this Court. Having accepted superannuation and remained out of service for several years, the Petitioners cannot now claim notional continuation or consequential monetary benefits as though they had remained in service. Grant of such relief would amount to conferring advantages without corresponding service and would run contrary to settled principles governing service jurisprudence.

¶95

The judgments in Dev Sharma (supra) , as clarified in Bharat Singh (supra) and subsequently followed in Rajender Singh (supra) , have consciously drawn a distinction between personnel who had not crossed the age of 60 years as on 31.01.2019 and those who had already crossed the said age. The Petitioners admittedly fall in the latter category. The issue therefore stands concluded by Co-Ordinate Bench decisions and cannot be reopened in the present proceedings.

¶96

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present Writ Petitions and Review Petitions. The Petitioners, having retired prior to 2016 and having crossed the age of 60 years as on 31.01.2019, are not entitled to the benefit flowing from Paragraph No.72 of the judgment in Dev Sharma (supra) or the subsequent Government order dated 19.08.2019.

¶97

The Writ Petitions and Review Petitions are accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶98

Signature Not Verified

¶99

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 12501/2019 and connected matters Page 12 of 13 Signing Da te:1 8.04.2026 11:31:26

¶100

A photocopy of the order passed today be kept in the connected matters.

¶101

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶102

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶103

APRIL 15, 2026 s.godara/sh

¶104

Signature Not Verified

¶105

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 8.04.2026 11:31:26

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Restrictive implementation order dated 11.09.2019 confining the option for rejoining service/three additional increments to personnel retired between 31.01.2019 and 19.08.2019, and individual rejection communications (including rejection letters dated 29.11.2019 and similarly worded orders) refusing notional service benefits and pension revision to personnel who had already retired.¶16
29.11.2019
Prior proceeding
Dev Sharma v. IndoTibetan Border Police & Anr., W.P.(C) 1951/2012: by judgment dated 31.01.2019 this Court struck down Rule 43(a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 and analogous provisions as violative of Article 14, and issued directions (paras 70-72) for uniform retirement age and notional addition of differential service for retiral benefits of those already retired.¶12
Prior proceeding
MHA Office Order No. F.No.45020/1/2019/Legal-I dated 19.08.2019 fixed the age of superannuation uniformly at 60 years for all CAPF personnel.¶13
Prior proceeding
Order dated 11.09.2019 (applicable inter alia to BSF) restricted the benefit of option for rejoining service or three additional increments to personnel retired between 31.01.2019 and 19.08.2019.¶15
Prior proceeding
Petitioners' representations seeking notional service benefits and pension revision were rejected through individual communications including rejection letters dated 29.11.2019.¶16
Prior proceeding
Bharat Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 13195/2019: this Court clarified that the benefit of paragraph 72 of Dev Sharma is available only to personnel who retired prior to 31.01.2019 and had not crossed 60 years of age as on that date, and that similarly placed persons need not independently approach the Court.¶21
Prior proceeding
Rajender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 2834/2021: this Court held that personnel who had already crossed 60 years as on 31.01.2019 were not entitled to continuation in service or consequential financial advantages.¶22
Prior proceeding
CM APPL. 43358/2021 and CM APPL. 43383/2021 sought condonation of 170 days' delay in filing Review Petitions 198/2021 and 199/2021 in W.P.(C) 13195/2019; delay condoned and applications disposed of.¶2

Ram Prasad Roy and Others v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prasad Roy and Others v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samrita Singh Vs Bank of India & Ors.

Ramesh Chand Vs Public Works Department and Ors.

Spark College of Pharmacy (PCI-3020) Vs Pharmacy Council of India

Surabhi Bhadauria Vs Union of India and Ors.

Navamma & Ors. Vs the Archaeological Survey of India through Directore of General , Delhi Curcle Humayoun Tomb

Print & Pack Vs Shri Madan Jha

Ms Tekram Enterprises Vs Delhi Development Authority

Shlok Bhardwaj Vs Union of India & Anr.

Gaurav Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Modern Construction Co. Delhi Vs M/S Hitech Enterprises & Anr.

M/S Vatika Business Centre Vs M/S India Post Payments Bank Ltd.

K. Sivakumar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Dheer Singh

Ramavatar Sharma and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.