India’s age-based retirement model was created for a very different reality—one of shorter lifespans, largely standardised roles and tenure-driven career progression. Today, as longevity increases and skill scarcity becomes a structural business risk, the conventional wisdom of forcing capable professionals to exit at 60 is being challenged. The question is no longer simply about fairness to ageing employees—it’s about whether organisations can afford to lose decades of institutional memory, judgment and specialised expertise in an era when replacing such knowledge has become extraordinarily difficult.
Yet the counter-pressure is real: cost structures, upward mobility for younger talent, and the practical limits of supporting extended careers. The debate, therefore, sits at an uncomfortable intersection—between experience and expense, continuity and renewal, retention and redesign.
Samar Banerjee, CHRO, Star Cement
Yes, it’s outdated—India’s retirement model no longer fits our reality.
India’s age-based retirement model was created for a very different socio-economic reality—shorter lifespans, standardised roles and tenure-driven progression. Today, forcing capable professionals to exit purely because of age results in significant loss of institutional memory, regulatory understanding, customer relationships and leadership judgment that takes decades to build.
We already see progressive organisations responding differently—IT companies retaining senior architects as mentors, manufacturing firms engaging retired plant heads as safety advisors, and banks bringing back former leaders in governance and compliance roles.
At the same time, organisations must remain cost-conscious and ensure upward mobility for younger talent in a country with one of the world’s youngest workforces. The answer is not indefinite tenure, but thoughtfully designed, value-based transitions—through fractional roles, mentorship assignments, expert contracts and skills-linked compensation.
Rethinking retirement is no longer just an HR policy decision; it is a strategic workforce imperative.
Takeaway: Age-based exits create invisible losses—progressive organisations are redesigning retirement as value-based transitions, not hard exits.
Kamaljeet Kaur, Senior HR Leader
Yes—the real risk is not an ageing workforce, but an outdated workforce model.
We are entering an era where people live longer, remain healthier and expect to work beyond traditional retirement ages. Yet organisational structures continue to follow centuries-old linear career models with fixed, age-based exits between 58–60 years.
The issue is not age, but archaic role design that assumes a linear career ending at a number. Rigid full-time roles ignore flexibility and the value created by experienced talent, leading to loss of institutional memory, mentoring capacity and maturity.
Age is a poor predictor of performance—especially in knowledge-driven roles where experience enhances judgment, systems thinking and crisis handling. In specialised domains such as engineering, construction and aerospace, experienced professionals often outperform younger peers in complexity and decision quality.
The strategic choice for CHROs is not retention versus exit, but rigid structures versus redesign. Progressive organisations now treat retirement as a phase, enabling transitions into advisory, mentoring and knowledge stewardship roles designed around value creation rather than hours worked.
As career spans lengthen, rethinking workforce architecture is essential for continuity and competitiveness.
Takeaway: Age-based exits reflect outdated role design—progressive organisations are shifting from rigid structures to flexible, value-driven workforce models
Supriya T, Former CHRO, Greaves Electric Mobility
Yes—chronological age is no longer a reliable indicator of capability.
Age-based exits are steadily becoming an outdated construct. Organisations are being reshaped by advancing technologies and new ways of working, while employees themselves are rethinking linear career arcs—seeking flexibility, second careers and portfolio lives beyond traditional tenure-based models.
Increasing lifespans and evolving healthcare outcomes mean chronological age is not the only indicator of capability or contribution. Organisations cannot ignore the cost of employing senior talent, yet they also cannot afford to lose wisdom, judgment and mentoring capacity.
The shift required is to move from “retirement as exit” to “retirement as transition of value.” Workforce models must enable continued engagement through flexible work arrangements, advisory mandates, project-based roles and re-crafted benefit structures.
Experiential capital is often best leveraged in coaching, governance, capability building and complex problem solving—rather than continuing only in traditional hierarchical leadership roles.
Takeaway: Retirement should be a transition of value, not an exit—organisations must redesign roles to leverage wisdom while managing costs
Col Berinder Singh Kullar, Former CHRO, Orient Paper & Industries
Yes, absolutely—it’s a lived reality we must address now.
The longevity economy is no longer a projection; it is today’s reality. As people live longer, healthier and more productive lives, age-based exit must be re-examined. The notion of a hard exit at 60 has become outdated. Capable, experienced employees are sidelined solely because they crossed a chronological threshold, not because they exhausted their ability to contribute.
In India, life expectancy has risen from around 54 years in the 1980s to nearly 73 years in 2023. Yet retirement age has remained static at around 60. This creates a “productivity desert”—a long post-retirement phase where individuals willing and able to work find themselves disengaged from meaningful professional life.
For organisations, this translates into quiet loss of invaluable talent—people who carry institutional memory, cultural continuity and lived stories that shape organisational identity. For Baby Boomers and Gen X professionals, compulsory retirement triggers not only financial anxiety but also existential shift. Work sustains cognitive vitality, social engagement and purpose.
The way forward is not holding older employees in the same roles indefinitely, but redesigning roles meaningfully. Senior professionals can transition into mentorship, advisory, project-based or retainer capacities. Flexible work hours, role-based assignments and phased retirement models allow organisations to retain expertise while adapting to changing capabilities.
The objective is balance—preserving organisational knowledge, providing dignified engagement and creating mentorship bridges for younger generations. Rethinking age-based exit is a strategic imperative for organisations navigating the longevity economy.
Takeaway: A hard exit at 60 creates a “productivity desert”—redesigning roles for phased, meaningful engagement preserves institutional memory while enabling dignified transitions