Supreme Court Stays High Court Ruling Which Unified Indian Coast Guard Retirement Age To 60; Directs Union To Form Expert Panel

The Supreme Court, while issuing notice, stayed the Delhi High Court judgment that had unified the retirement age of all Indian Coast Guard (ICG) personnel at 60 years. 

The Union of India approached the Supreme Court to challenge a Delhi High Court judgment that increased the retirement age of Indian Coast Guard (ICG) personnel to 60 years. The government argued that the High Court wrongly equated the Coast Guard with Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) like the CRPF.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "Issue notice. Meanwhile, operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed...Counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 4 accepts notice. Counter Affidavit may be filed within two weeks...List the matter two weeks thereafter. However, we direct the Union to consider constituting an expert committee to revisit the conditions of service of the coast guard personnel, especially with respect to the age of recruitment to the age of retirement. The report is to be submitted to this court."

It was submitted by the Counsel for the Petitioner that the Coast Guard is operated under the Ministry of Defence and faced much harsher conditions at sea, similar to the Navy, which required a younger workforce.

During the hearing, the Petitioner highlighted the extreme physical demands of serving on submarines and ships. It was pointed out that medical evacuations at sea were difficult and that personnel often lived in confined spaces without normal food or water for long periods. It was argued that because these were "Armed Forces" governed by specific statutes, the courts should not unilaterally change service rules that were designed to maintain operational efficiency.

The Court remarked that the current retirement age appeared to follow an old British-era pattern. The judges noted that since the Coast Guard Act was passed in 1978, life expectancy and physical fitness standards changed significantly. The Court suggested that experience mattered greatly in such a "sophisticated and robust force" and remarked that the government should not be "too static or conservative" in its approach to service conditions.

The Petitioner expressed concern that if the retirement age stayed at 60, it would open a "Pandora’s Box" of similar petitions from other branches of the military. They argued that retirement ages in the armed forces were carefully linked to recruitment ages to ensure a specific length of service. The counsel emphasized that these matters fell within the realm of policy and should be decided by experts rather than the judiciary.

After hearing, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the petitioners and stayed the operation of the Delhi High Court’s judgment. The Court directed the Union Government to constitute an expert committee to revisit the service conditions of Coast Guard personnel. The committee was tasked with looking into the entire career span, from recruitment to retirement, and was ordered to submit its report to the Court for further review.

Before the Delhi High Court, the petitioners, who were retired or serving officers and enrolled persons of the Indian Coast Guard, challenged the constitutionality of Rule 20 of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986. Under this rule, officers of the rank of Commandant and below, as well as all "enrolled persons" (subordinate officers and sailors), were required to retire at the age of 57. In contrast, officers holding a rank higher than Commandant were allowed to serve until the age of 60.

The High Court held, "Resultantly, we hold that the impugned Rule 20(1) and 20(2) of the 1986 Rules cannot sustain scrutiny of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, to the extent they fix the age of superannuation of officers of the rank of Commandant and below, and enrolled persons, at 57. They are, therefore, quashed and set aside. We hold, therefore, that the age of superannuation of 60 would apply to officers of the Coast Guard at all ranks."

The petitioners argued that this three-year difference created an "invidious and unconstitutional discrimination" that violated their fundamental rights to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The court noted that similar disparities had already been abolished in other Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) like the BSF, CRPF, and ITBP following a previous Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Dev Sharma v. Indo Tibetan Border Police. In that case, the court ruled that all personnel in those forces should retire at 60. However, because the Coast Guard is technically a paramilitary force under the Ministry of Defence rather than a CAPF under the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Dev Sharma ruling did not automatically apply to it.

The Ministry of Defence and the Coast Guard Headquarters refused to equalize the retirement age. They justified the lower retirement age for lower ranks by arguing that the Coast Guard, as a sea-going service, required a "young age profile" to maintain operational efficiency on ships and aviation platforms. They also pointed out that unlike land-based forces, medical evacuations from sea are difficult and time-consuming, making it riskier for older personnel to serve at sea.

The High Court found these justifications unconvincing. The Bench observed that the Coast Guard was now the only paramilitary force in India maintaining such a disparity. The judges remarked that the government failed to show any "rational nexus" between retiring lower-ranking officers three years earlier and maintaining the efficiency of the force.

The High Court has held, "The petitioners, in these writ petitions, already stand superannuated at the age of 57. Inasmuch as they were prevented from continuing in service till the age of 60 only because of Rule 20 of the 1986 Rules, which we have declared to be illegal, they would be entitled to be treated as having continued in service till the age of 60, and to the pay of the post held by them at the time of their retirement for a further period of three years, which would include any increments or pay refixation benefits to which they might have become entitled during that period. Their retiral benefits would also be recomputed accordingly."

Ultimately, the Court held that Rule 20(1) and 20(2) were unconstitutional to the extent that they fixed a lower retirement age for lower ranks. The court ruled that the age of superannuation of 60 years would now apply to all ranks of the Coast Guard. For those petitioners who had already retired at 57 while the case was pending, the court directed that they be treated as having served until 60 and be paid their arrears and recomputed pension benefits accordingly.

Cause Title: Union of India v. Cheeli J Ratnam [Diary No. 9017 of 2026]