1. Retirement age dispute — Extension of superannuation for disabled employees — Challenge to discriminatory application of executive instructions regarding retirement age for specified disabilities. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 617
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANOJ MISRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Kashmiri Lal Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4761-4762 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1091 - 1092 of 2023)
Decided On : 03-04-2025
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Subhro Sanyal, AOR.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv. Ms. Khushboo Hora, Adv. Ms. Archita Nigam, Adv. Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Subhro Sanyal, AOR.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv. Ms. Khushboo Hora, Adv. Ms. Archita Nigam, Adv. Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR.
Important Points
The court established that the retirement age extension benefit applies to all specified disabilities, not just visually impaired individuals, affirming equality under the law.
Subject
Employment Law - Disability Rights
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Office Memorandum dated 29.03.2013 - Withdrawal of benefits for retirement age extension for physically disabled employees - The court held that the benefit of extension of retirement age from 58 to 60 years should apply to all specified disabilities, not just visually impaired individuals. (Paras 10-16)
(B) Discrimination - The court emphasized that confining benefits to visually impaired employees violates Article 14 of the Constitution, as all specified disabilities constitute a homogeneous class under the 1995 Act. (Paras 5-6)
(C) Withdrawal of benefits - The court ruled that the withdrawal of the OM dated 29.03.2013 was valid, but the appellant was entitled to benefits until the withdrawal date. (Paras 18-22)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, suffering from a permanent locomotor disability, was appointed as an Electrician and was to retire at 58. He sought extension of retirement age based on an OM that was later withdrawn.
Findings of Court:
The appellant is entitled to full wages from 01.10.2018 to 04.11.2019, with all consequential benefits.
Issues: Whether the retirement age extension should apply to all disabilities and the validity of the OM withdrawal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the extension of retirement age should not be limited to visually impaired employees and that the withdrawal of the OM was valid.
Result: Appeals partly allowed.
(B) Discrimination - The court emphasized that confining benefits to visually impaired employees violates Article 14 of the Constitution, as all specified disabilities constitute a homogeneous class under the 1995 Act. (Paras 5-6)
(C) Withdrawal of benefits - The court ruled that the withdrawal of the OM dated 29.03.2013 was valid, but the appellant was entitled to benefits until the withdrawal date. (Paras 18-22)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, suffering from a permanent locomotor disability, was appointed as an Electrician and was to retire at 58. He sought extension of retirement age based on an OM that was later withdrawn.
Findings of Court:
The appellant is entitled to full wages from 01.10.2018 to 04.11.2019, with all consequential benefits.
Issues: Whether the retirement age extension should apply to all disabilities and the validity of the OM withdrawal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the extension of retirement age should not be limited to visually impaired employees and that the withdrawal of the OM was valid.
Result: Appeals partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- statutory law
Table of Contents
2. Whether age extension benefits for visually impaired employees should extend to all specified disabilities under the Disabilities Acts or if such benefits are discretionary and withdrawable. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Benefit of age extension cannot be confined to one disability category when others are specified under the same Act without an intelligible basis for discrimination. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Age extension benefits for disabled employees must apply to all specified benchmark disabilities; executive instructions may be rescinded by the issuing authority under the General Clauses Act. (Para 14 , 16 , 18 )
5. Appeals partly allowed — Appellant granted continuance in service and full wages until the date of withdrawal of the Office Memorandum. (Para 22 )
6. Can retirement age extension for visually impaired employees be denied to other specified disabilities?
No. If the benefit of age extension is available to the visually impaired category, it must be available to all benchmark disabilities specified in the 1995 and 2016 Acts, as there is no intelligible basis to confer the benefit to one disabled category and deny it to others. (Para 14 , 16 )
7. Can an Office Memorandum extending retirement age be withdrawn by the government?
Yes. Under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the power to issue notifications, orders, or rules includes the power to rescind them, provided the change in service conditions was made via executive instructions and not by amending statutory service rules. (Para 18 )
8. Does an employee have a fundamental right to a specific retirement age?
No. An employee has no fundamental right regarding the age at which they retire. Termination of service upon reaching the age of superannuation in accordance with law does not amount to removal from service under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. (Para 18 )
9. Is an employee entitled to continue in service after a beneficial Office Memorandum is withdrawn?
If no judicial order vested the right to the benefit before the withdrawal, the employee is not entitled to continue beyond the withdrawal date, though they may be entitled to benefits for the period the memorandum was operative. (Para 20 , 21 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals arise from a writ petition (i.e., CWP No.146 of 2020) filed by the appellant for declaring the retirement order dated 30.09.2018, seeking to retire the appellant at the age of 58, as null and void in view of the Office Memorandum (for short OM) dated 29.03.2013 and also for declaring the OM dated 04.11.2019, withdrawing the OM dated 29.03.2013, as null and void, or, in the alternative, to declare the same as not applicable to the appellant. By the impugned order dated 28.07.2021 the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed and, later, by the second impugned order dated 22.06.2022 the review was dismissed.
Facts
3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these appeals are as under:
a) The appellant being a person with permanent locomotor disability to the extent of 60 per cent was appointed as an Electrician with the 1st respondent on 13.03.1985. On the date of his appointment, he would have attained the age of superannuation on completing 58 years which, as per his date of birth (i.e., 19.09.1960), would have been 18.09.2018. However, by virtue of the extant service conditions, he would have continued in service till the last date of the month in which he attained the age of superannuation i.e., till 30.09.2018.
b) On 29.03.2013, an OM was issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh extending the age of superannuation of physically handicapped (visually impaired) category of employees from 58 years to 60 years.
c) Claiming that the benefit of the said OM should also be extended to persons suffering from other specified physical disabilities, the appellant before his retirement represented to the authorities to grant him the benefit of age extension.
d) The 1st respondent, however, did not accept the request for age extension and instead served a notice of retirement on 22.09.2018, informing the appellant that he would retire on 30.09.2018.
e) In the meantime, prior to the date of attaining the age of superannuation, the appellant had filed an Original Application No. (M) 508/2018 before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for enhancement of his retirement age from 58 years to 60 years in view of the OM dated 29.03.2013.
f) While the aforesaid Original Application was pending, by OM dated 04.11.2019, the State withdrew the OM dated 29.03.2013 with immediate effect. Faced with that situation, the Original Application, which was transferred to the High Court upon abolition of the Tribunal, was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to file a fresh petition challenging, inter alia, the OM dated 04.11.2019.
g) Pursuant to the liberty so provided to the appellant, a fresh petition (i.e., CWP 146 of 2020) was filed before the High Court, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
Submissions on behalf of appellant
5. The submission of Shri Subhro Sanyal, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that denial of benefit of the OM dated 29.03.2013 to persons suffering from other specified disabilities, by confining it to only the visually impaired category, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as benefit of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short 1995 Act) and the subsequent enactment i.e., The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short 2016 Act) extend to all specified disabilities which include locomotor disability, therefore persons suffering from those specified disabilities constitute a homogeneous class, albeit posts may be reserved for a specified category of disability.
6. It has been contended that a similar issue had arisen before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.7233 of 2010 [ Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others ]. The High Court took the view that confining the benefit of enhancement of retirement age only to visually impaired category of employees wo
