Extended age of superannuation given only to employees with 70% or above disability is violative of Article 14

Punjab and Haryana High Court Declares Rule Restricting Superannuation Age for Disabled Employees Unconstitutional. Rule 143 of Haryana Civil Service (General) Rules, 2016 limiting extended age of superannuation to employees with 70% or above disability or blindness violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

In a landmark judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has struck down Rule 143 of the Haryana Civil Service (General) Rules, 2016, which limited the extended age of superannuation to employees suffering from a disability of 70% or above, or blindness. The Court held that such a classification is arbitrary, lacks intelligible differentia, and does not achieve any valid object, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The judgment came in response to a batch of writ petitions filed by employees of the State of Haryana possessing certificates of disability issued under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. These petitioners were aggrieved by the discriminatory rule which restricted the extended retirement age of 60 years only to employees with a disability of 70% or more, thereby excluding those with lower percentages of disability.

The Court emphasized that both the Disabilities Act of 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 recognize a homogeneous class of differently abled persons, who are entitled to protection in employment. The Acts specify a benchmark disability of 40% or above for protection, and any further classification within this group without a rational basis is impermissible.

The judgment meticulously analyzed the statutory provisions and past judicial precedents, including similar cases in neighboring states, to conclude that all differently abled employees with a benchmark disability are entitled to equal treatment under law, including the benefit of extended age of superannuation.

The High Court also quashed Note 3 appended to Rule 143, which required examination by a Medical Board for determining 70% or above disability. The Court held that once the classification restricting extended age of superannuation is declared ultra vires, the requirement of Note 3 serves no purpose.

The judgment is expected to have wide-ranging implications for the rights of differently abled employees in Haryana and potentially influence policy changes in other states across India. The Court has directed that all differently abled employees of the State of Haryana, who possess a certificate of disability under the relevant Acts, shall be entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 60 years.

Bottom Line:

Rule limiting extended age of superannuation only to differently abled employees with 70% or above disability or blindness held violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and inconsistent with the provisions of Disabilities Act, 1995 and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Statutory provision(s): Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Haryana Civil Service (General) Rules, 2016, Rule 143, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Disabilities Act, 1995.

Jora Singh v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2809109