Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Withdrawal of Extended Retirement Age for Differently-Abled Employees
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the Haryana Government's notification to withdraw extended retirement age provisions for certain differently-abled employees. The Division Bench comprising Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Rohit Kapoor ruled that the differentiated retirement age, based on intelligible differentia, does not violate the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, or constitutional provisions.
The case, titled "Madan Kumar v. State of Haryana," revolved around a notification dated February 3, 2026, which omitted specific clauses from Rule 143 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016. These clauses previously allowed differently-abled employees with a disability of 70% or more, and blind employees, to retire at the age of 60 instead of 58.
The petitioner, Madan Kumar, who suffers from bipolar affective disorder with a 50% disability, argued that the omission of these provisions amounted to discrimination and violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. He sought an extension of his service till 60 years, citing the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The court, however, found the petitioner's arguments unpersuasive. It highlighted that the state's decision to maintain a uniform retirement age, with exceptions only for Group 'D' employees and Judicial Officers, is based on rational considerations and does not result in discrimination among similarly situated employees. The judgment emphasized that the RPwD Act prohibits discrimination between differently-abled employees and their able-bodied counterparts performing the same work, but does not mandate identical retirement provisions.
The ruling reaffirms the state's authority to prescribe different retirement ages based on public interest and service exigencies. It further clarifies that the withdrawal of extended retirement age does not contravene the RPwD Act, provided it adheres to principles of non-discrimination.
This decision aligns with previous judgments, including "Rajnish Kumar v. State of Haryana," where similar challenges were dismissed, reinforcing the legality of the state's uniform retirement policy.
Bottom line:-
Differentiated retirement age for various categories of employees, including differently-abled employees, does not violate the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, if based on intelligible differentia and does not discriminate against similarly situated employees.
Statutory provision(s): Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 Sections 3, 20; Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 14, 16, 21
Madan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2904748
