SUMAN K SHRIVASTVA
Ranchi, Dec. 24: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by 956 ex-servicemen seeking continuation in service until the age of superannuation, holding that contractual appointments under the Special Auxiliary Police (SAP) Force scheme cannot be extended beyond the fixed tenure prescribed by the government.
A Single Bench of Justice Ananda Sen, in a recent judgement, ruled that internal recommendations or administrative irregularities cannot confer legal rights, observing that “there cannot be equality in illegality.”
What the Case Was About
The petitioners, all former Army personnel, were appointed on a contractual basis under a government scheme to serve in the Special Auxiliary Police Force. The SAP was constituted in June 2008 to assist in maintaining law and order, providing security at police stations and industrial establishments, and handling security-related duties.
ALSO READ: Chill tightens grip across Jharkhand as Gumla shivers at 3.9°C
Although the reliefs sought varied slightly, all petitions raised the same core issue — whether SAP personnel could continue beyond the maximum seven-year contractual tenure, either until the age of superannuation or for as long as the scheme remained in force. Some petitioners also challenged their termination orders and sought a restraint on fresh recruitment.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The ex-servicemen argued that the SAP scheme did not prescribe any age of superannuation. As a result, they claimed their retirement age should be treated the same as that of regular government employees. They also contended that limiting their service to seven years was arbitrary, particularly since the scheme itself continued.
The petitioners further alleged discrimination, stating that some SAP personnel were allowed to continue for 13 to 15 years, while others were removed after completing seven years. Relying on internal recommendations made by senior police officers in 2016, they argued that the age of superannuation should be fixed at 60 or 62 years. They also cited an alleged shortage of manpower to justify their continuation.
State’s Stand
The State government opposed the petitions, submitting that the SAP scheme clearly fixed the maximum tenure at seven years — an initial contract of two years, extendable by five years. It argued that any internal recommendation or correspondence could not override a government-approved scheme.
The State also contended that even if some personnel were wrongly allowed to continue beyond seven years, such continuation was illegal and could not be cited to claim parity.
Court’s Findings
The High Court examined the SAP scheme and noted that while it clearly fixed the tenure of contractual personnel, it did not provide for any age of superannuation. The scheme was amended in March 2016 only to enhance the age bracket for eligibility at the time of appointment, not to introduce a retirement age.
Rejecting the petitioners’ reliance on two internal letters issued in October 2016 by the Commandant and the Inspector General of Police (Operations), the Court held that these were merely recommendations, not decisions of the government, and had no force of law.
The Court emphasised that a scheme governing service conditions must be followed strictly and can be amended only through a formal government decision. It also reiterated that Article 14 of the Constitution does not permit negative equality, meaning illegal benefits granted to some cannot be extended to others.
Final Verdict
Holding that the petitioners had no legal right to seek superannuation beyond the contractual tenure, the High Court dismissed all the writ petitions filed by the 956 ex-servicemen. All interim orders were vacated.
