The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently read down the Rule 143 of Haryana Civil Service (General) Rules, 2016 which had limited the benefit of extended age of superannuation only to employees suffering with disability of 70 percent or more or blindness [Jora Singh v State of Haryana and Others]

The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor ruled that all differently abled employees, who have been issued the certificate of disability under The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, would be entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 60 years.

"The determination of disability since is regulated by the Act of 1995 as well as Act of 2016 therefore, the determination of degree of disability as per the applicable provisions in law would regulate the extension in the age of superannuation for the differently abled employees having the required disability as per law," the Court ordered.

However, the Court also noted that the enactments in itself do not have any affirmative action in the nature of extended tenure of service for persons suffering from such disability. 

Haryana government also has not taken any conscious decision to provide for extended age of superannuation for persons suffering with disability under these enactments, it added.

"In such circumstances, while deciding these matter(s), we deem it appropriate to clarify that it shall be open for the State of Haryana to take a conscious decision whether or not to allow the extended age of superannuation for persons suffering with disability, in light of the provisions contained in the Act of 1995 as also the Act of 2016," the bench ordered.

Rule 143 of service rules prescribed the age of superannuation of the employees of the State of Haryana as 58, except those following in these categories:

(i) Differently abled employees having a minimum degree of disability of 70% or above or blindness;

(ii) Blind employees;

(iii) Group-D employees and

(iv) Judicial Officers. 

Their retirement age is 60 years.

The rule was challenged in a batch of present 137 petitions.

The counsel representing the petitioners argued that the State cannot restrict the benefit of extended age of superannuation only to a person suffering from a degree of disability of 70 percent or above and blindness, notwithstanding the enactments specifying the degree of disability for grant of protection at 40 percent or above.

In the verdict dated November 6, the Court said it failed to understand how the State could come out with a policy restricting benefit of extended age of superannuation only for employees suffering from disability of 70 percent or above or of blindness when the applicable law specifies disability of 40 percent or above/benchmark disability for grant of protection to differently abled persons.

"Mere making of representation by the Association of differently abled employees cannot furnish a valid basis for the creation of a distinct class of differently abled employees in the matter of extending the age of superannuation," the Court ruled.

Employees suffering with benchmark disability/disability above 40 percent have been held to constitute a homogeneous class in themselves for the purposes of affirmative action by the State for protection in employment, it added.

Thus, the Court ruled that the classification limiting the benefit only to employees suffering from disability of 70 percent or above or of blindness was not based on any intelligible differentia.

"We, therefore, find substance in the petitioners’ grievance that Rule 143 of the Rules of 2016 insofar as it limits the benefit of extended age of superannuation to persons suffering with disability of 70% or more or blindness contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Act of 2016 and consequently is liable to be declared ultra vires," it said.

Senior Advocates Vikas Chatrath, Anurag Goyal, Rakesh Nehra, Sunil K Nehra and other counsel represented the petitioners.

Additional Advocates General Sanjeev Kaushik and Hitesh Pandit represented the State of Haryana.

[Read Judgment]