Combatised Status Of Cadre Once Conferred By President Extends To Subsequent Posts Within It Without Fresh Declaration: Delhi High Court

The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by the Union of India challenging orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had directed continuation of Air Wing personnel of the Border Security Force (BSF) till the age of 60 years on the premise that their posts were civilian in nature.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan observed: “Once a cadre stands combatised by a Presidential decision, the subsequent creation of posts within that cadre does not require a repetitive declaration of combatised status. The combatised character inheres in the cadre itself.”

CGSC Pratima N. Lakra represented the appellants, while Advocate Nikhil Palli represented the respondents.

Background

The respondents, who were re-employed ex-servicemen in the Air Wing of the BSF, had challenged their retirement at the age of 57 years because the posts held by them were non-combatant and governed by civilian service rules.

They relied upon recruitment rules governing non-combatised posts and contended that, in the absence of a specific declaration converting their posts into combatised posts, they were entitled to the retirement age applicable to civilian employees.

The Union of India, on the other hand, relied upon the Presidential sanction dated 19.09.1989, which had ordered combatisation of various posts in the BSF, including those in the Air Wing. It was contended that once such combatisation had taken place, all future appointments in those categories would necessarily be in combatised ranks.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ case, holding that since the subsequent sanction creating posts did not explicitly state that the posts were combatised, they were to be treated as civilian posts.

Court’s Observation

The High Court held that the Presidential sanction of 1989 had a transformative effect by bringing the relevant Air Wing posts within the combatised framework of the BSF. It noted that the sanction not only converted existing posts but also mandated that “all future appointments/recruitments… shall be in the combatised ranks.”

The Court held that this transformation was not limited to specific posts but extended to the entire cadre, thereby altering its legal character.

Rejecting the Tribunal’s reasoning, the Court held that once a cadre is combatised, subsequent posts created within that cadre automatically inherit the same character. It was observed that requiring a fresh declaration for every newly created post would be contrary to administrative logic and cadre management principles.

The Court held that the Tribunal erred in treating the absence of an express declaration in later sanctions as indicative of civilian status, ignoring the prior transformation of the cadre itself.

The Court further examined the nature of appointment of the respondents and found that they were appointed against posts carrying higher pay scales and rank equivalence associated with combat positions. It noted that they received benefits such as uniform, allowances, and promotional avenues consistent with combat service.

It held that the respondents, having served within the combat-structured structure and availed its benefits, could not subsequently claim civilian status to seek a higher retirement age.

The Court distinguished between recruitment rules governing civilian posts and those applicable to combatant cadres. It held that the rules relied upon by the respondents applied only to non-combat posts and could not be invoked to recharacterize posts that were already part of a combatised cadre.

The Court also clarified that provisions relating to deputation and re-employment up to the age of superannuation applicable to civil posts were limited to specific categories of personnel and could not override the statutory framework governing combatant personnel.

Emphasising the nature of the BSF as an armed force of the Union, the Court observed that cadre structure, discipline, and uniformity of service conditions are integral to its functioning. It held that service jurisprudence in such forces must align with this institutional framework and cannot permit reclassification based on convenience.

Conclusion

The High Court held that the posts in question were part of a combatised cadre and that the respondents were liable to retire at the age of 57 years in accordance with the applicable rules governing combatised personnel.

It accordingly set aside the orders of the Tribunal directing continuation of the respondents till 60 years and allowed the writ petitions filed by the Union of India.

Cause Title: Union of India & Ors. v. B.N. Chaubey & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2359-DB)

Appearances

Petitioners: CGSC Pratima N. Lakra with Advocates Shailendra Kumar Mishra & Abhishek Sharma; CGSC Anjana Gosain with Advocate Shreya Manjari; CGSC Arunima Dwivedi with Advocates Himanshi Singh & Monalisha Pradhan

Respondents: Advocates Nikhil Palli & Niyati Razdan

Click here to read/download Judgment