PTI, NEW DELHI: Hundreds of retirements and subsequent pension procedures for personnel of various Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) have been stuck since May 31 as the Ministry of Home Affairs is yet to take a final decision over fixing a benchmark superannuation age in these uniformed services.
The headquarters of the four major CAPFs — the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the Border Security Force (BSF), the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) and the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), here are continuously getting messages from their field units, seeking directions on the way forward. But they are being asked to “maintain status quo till the government takes a final decision,” multiple officials in these forces said.
A number of orders issued by these forces, which have been seen by PTI, state action on this front has to be kept on hold till “a final decision by the MHA and the Department of Personnel and Training”.
The ceremonial farewells and processing of retirement papers have been halted for for hundreds of personnel from the constabulary up to the commandant level (senior superintendent of police equivalent) since May 31, the officials said.
While some forces have either asked the retirees to stay at home till a final decision is taken, others have asked them to keep coming to office but refrain from doing any work, they added.
The development pertains to a January order of the Delhi High Court where it had called the current policy of different age of superannuation in the four forces of CRPF, BSF, ITBP and SSB as “discriminatory and unconstitutional” and said it created two classes in the uniformed forces.
According to the present policy, all personnel in the other forces under the MHA — the Central Industrial Security Force and the Assam Rifles — retire at the age of 60.
However, in CRPF, BSF, ITBP and SSB, the personnel from the ranks of constable to commandant retire at the age of 57, while those above them superannuate at the age of 60.
The Supreme Court on May 10 dismissed an SLP (special leave petition) filed by the Union government in which the latter had challenged the HC order, stating that such matters were in the realm of policy decisions and not for the courts to decide.
