118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision:17.02.2026 SURENDER SINGH AND ANOTHER ....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl., AG, Haryana.

****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

1. This writ petition seeks to assail a Notification issued by the Government of Haryana, whereby Rule 143(1), Clause (i), Clause (ii), as well as Note 1 and Note 3 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016, have been ordered to be omitted.

2. The notification reads as under:-

“HARYANA GOVERNMENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT Notification The 3^rd February, 2026 No.11/58/2023-1FR/27758- In exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Haryana hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016, namely:-

1. (1) These rules may be called the Haryana Civil Services (General) Amendment Rules, 2026.

(2) They shall come into force with effect from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016, Rule 143, in sub-rule (1) clause (i), clause (ii), Note 1 and Note 3, shall be omitted.”

3. Rule 143(1), Clause (i), Clause (ii), as well as Note 1 and Note 3, read as under:-

“143 Retirement on superannuation-

****

(i) Differently-abled employees having minimum degree of disability of 70% and above;

(ii) Blind employees.

****

Note 1-One eyed employee shall not be treated as blind or differently-abled person for the purpose of this rule.

****

Note 3-A Government employee who becomes disabled while in service shall bring to the notice of his Head of Department minimum three months before attaining the age of 58 years. He shall be got examined from a Medical Board of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical and Science, Rohtak to be headed by its Director. On receipt of medical report from the Board, the appointing authority or the Head of Department, whichever is higher, shall take a final decision to grant or not to grant the extension in service to such physically disabled employee.”

4. The provision which now stands deleted provided for an extended age of superannuation for persons suffering from disabilities. As per the provision, all those differently abled employees, who were suffering from a disability of ‘70% or above’ or were blind, were entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years, whereas for all other employees, the age of superannuation under the Rules was 58 years.

5. A bunch of writ petitions had been filed questioning the fixation of criteria of disability as 70% and blindness on the ground that all those who incur a disability of ‘40% and above’ constitute a composite class and, therefore, the State would not be justified in creating a class within a homogeneous group.

6. This bunch of petitions came to be decided by this Court on 06.11.2025 in Jora Singh vs. State of Haryana and others and connected matters, 2025 NCPHHC 155797. This Court, in Jora Singh (supra), examined the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short, ‘the Act of 2016’) and came to the conclusion that the intent of the parliamentary legislation is to insulate persons suffering from disabilities from any kind of discrimination. This Court also traced the decisions taken from time to time on account of which such extension in the age of superannuation was provided.

7. It was found that, in fact, there was no conscious decision to extend such benefit by the State of Haryana. Though the bunch of writ petitions in Jora Singh (supra) was allowed, the Court made the following observations in paragraph No. 43 of the judgment, which are reproduced hereinafter:-:-

“43. Before par