Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 18847

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Rohit Kapoor, JJ
Jora Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CWP-2340-2023|CWP-6460-2023|CWP-17510-2023|CWP-26961-2023|CWP-3145-2024|CWP-1373-2024|CWP-2824-2024|CWP-3148-2024|CWP-3307-2024|CWP-3927-2024|CWP-4458-2024|CWP-4481-2024|CWP-5411-2024|CWP-5470-2024|CWP-5476-2024|CWP-5485-2024|CWP-6490-2024|CWP-4250-2024|CWP-5970-2024|CWP-6476-2024|CWP-6555-2024|CWP-7720-2024|CWP-9857-2024|CWP-7473-2024|CWP-29482-2023|CWP-6662-2024|CWP-6569-2024|CWP-7297-2024|CWP-11326-2024|CWP-9113-2024|CWP-12637-2024|CWP-14352-2024|CWP-14876-2024|CWP-14921-2024|CWP-16070-2024|CWP-14948-2024|CWP-13159-2024|CWP-37361-2019|CWP-14501-2024|CWP-14968-2024|CWP-15391-2024|CWP-16550-2024|CWP-19654-2024|CWP-19952-2024|CWP-23480-2024|CWP-25523-2024|CWP-29119-2024|CWP-29849-2024|CWP-29925-2024|CWP-14961-2024|CWP-18859-2024|CWP-22244-2024|CWP-24163-2024|CWP-26404-2024|CWP-27628-2024|CWP-28538-2024|CWP-16443-2024|CWP-33051-2024|CWP-35373-2024|CWP-853-2025|CWP-955-2025|CWP-12779-2024|CWP-12785-2024|CWP-12856-2024|CWP-13392-2024|CWP-13734-2024|CWP-15770-2024|CWP-32365-2024|CWP-30130-2024|CWP-14179-2024|CWP-32996-2024|LPA-733-2020|CWP-33651-2024|CWP-4947-2025|CWP-3559-2025|CWP-3074-2025|CWP-2436-2025|CWP-4614-2025|CWP-5086-2025|CWP-31187-2024|CWP-2040-2025|CWP-32844-2024|CWP-1290-2025|CWP-7716-2025|CWP-7820-2025|CWP-10374-2025|CWP-10520-2025|CWP-20637-2024|CWP-4358-2025|CWP-11362-2025|CWP-11055-2025|CWP-11012-2025|CWP-13029-2025|CWP-13911-2025|CWP-11848-2025|CWP-11418-2025|CWP-13922-2025|CWP-12713-2025|CWP-8579-2025|CWP-14105-2025|CWP-14346-2025|CWP-14988-2025|CWP-16974-2025|CWP-17637-2025|CWP-17780-2025|CWP-18754-2025|LPA-1480-2025|CWP-16156-2025|CWP-1977-2021|CWP-15843-2024|CWP-23052-2025|CWP-23656-2025|CWP-23985-2025|CWP-6678-2024|CWP-25844-2025|CWP-24576-2025|CWP-5839-2025|CWP-7174-2025|CWP-11034-2025|CWP-26985-2025|CWP-18646-2021|CWP-7844-2022|CWP-9625-2023|CWP-27478-2025|CWP-28283-2025|CWP-28250-2025|CWP-30035-2025|CWP-30466-2025|CWP-30512-2025|CWP-31122-2025|CWP-17988-2025|CWP-28937-2025|CWP-28982-2025|CWP-31484-2025|LPA-296-2019|CWP-7898-2025|CWP-31604-2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vikas Chatrath, Abhishek Sharma, Anurag Goyal, Siddharth Sharma, Rakesh Nehra, Chirag Kundu, Sunil K. Nehra, Anuj Chauhan, Rahil Mahajan, Prateek Singh, Pankaj Mehta, Parminder Singh, Ankit Chahal, Jaswinder Singh Rana, S.K. Malik, Sushil Sheoran, Jawahar Lal Goyal, Parth Goyal, Rakesh Sobti, Ankur Kaushik, G.S. Gopera, R.N. Lohan, K.S. Panwar, Sahil Gupta, Surender Pal, Ashok Kaushik, Gaurav Tyagi, Garvit Mittal, Onkar Chauhan, Samrat Malik, Harsh Sharma, Dev Kumar Ahlawat, Ajay K. Yadav, B.K. Bagri, Govind Chauhan, Sandeep Takhan, Anil Kumar Sharma, Lupil Gupta, Mamta Saini, Kanwal Goyal, Sushil Jain, M.S. Randhawa, Bhupander Ghanghas, Arvind Galav, Alka Sharma, Karamveer Singh Banyana, Dharamvir Sharma, Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Anurag Jain, Sumit Sangwan, Sajjan Singh, Raj Kumar Makkad, Sandeep Kumar, Amish Sharma, Ravi Sharma, Krishan Singh, Parduman Garg, Gaurav Gupta, Bhupender Ghangas, Bindu Tanwar, Saurabh Dalal, Viren Sibal, B.R. Rana, Akshay Kumar, Varun Veer Chauhan, Shiv Charan Bhola, Naveen Lohiya
For the Respondents: Sanjeev Kaushik, Hitesh Pandit, Madhu Dayal, Shivam J. Malik, Rajvir Singh Sihag

The State cannot create arbitrary sub-classifications for eligibility of service benefits among a homogeneous group of persons with benchmark disabilities. Once a disability meets the statutory threshold of 40%, further restrictions limiting benefits to those with higher disability percentages are unconstitutional and discriminatory.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 309 - Haryana Civil Service (General) Rules, 2016 - Rule 143 - The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 2(r), 2(s), 2(t), 34 - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Sections 2(i), 2(t), 32, 33 - Retirement age - Classification of differently abled employees - Whether a sub-classification within a homogeneous group of disabled persons (percentage of disability) for the purpose of extending the age of superannuation is permissible - The court held that such arbitrary sub-classification is unsustainable as it discriminates against persons with benchmark disability of 40% who are part of the same homogeneous group. (Paras 2, 3, 5, 27, 39)

(B) Administrative Law - Service Law - Affirmative Action - Principles of Equality and Non-discrimination - Any classification among persons with disabilities must be based on intelligible differentia having a nexus to the object sought to be achieved - Mere executive instructions limiting benefits based on specific thresholds of disability, unsupported by objective data or statutory justification, violates Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 33, 34, 38, 39)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, being differently abled employees with a certified disability of 40% or more, challenged the vires of the State service rules which restricted the benefit of extended age of superannuation to 60 years solely to those employees who possessed a disability certificate of 70% or above or were blind, thereby forcing petitioners to retire at 58.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the legislative intent of the statutory framework is to provide equal protection and affirmative action to all persons with benchmark disability (40% or above). The state failed to provide any rational or intelligible basis for restricting the benefit to a sub-category of 70% or above, and such distinction was declared arbitrary and violative of the equality clause under the Constitution.

Issues: Whether the state can create a further classification within the homogeneous class of 'persons with disabilities' defined by statute to restrict the benefit of extended retirement age, and whether the requirement of a specific higher percentage certification for this benefit is legally valid.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a person meets the statutory threshold of benchmark disability, they form a homogeneous class for employment benefits. Discrimination among this class without a compelling, rational, and evidence-backed justification violates constitutional principles of equality and the legislative intent of disability protection laws.

Result: Rule 143 of the relevant Civil Service Rules was read down to include all differently abled employees holding a valid disability certificate under the applicable statutes, and the requirement for a specific higher percentage of disability for the eligibility for extended retirement was quashed. Petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. legal challenge to rule 143 restricting superannuation benefits based on 70% disability. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. historical precedents and legislative evolution regarding disability-based employment protection. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. applicability of 1995 and 2016 disability statutes to service conditions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. absence of rational justification for sub-classification within the homogeneous group of disabled employees. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
5. rule 143 read down to include all disabled employees meeting statutory certification; note 3 quashed. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. This order shall dispose of the aforementioned bunch of 134 Writ Petitions and 03 LPAs, as the issue involved in these cases is common. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP 2340-2023.

2. The petitioners in this bunch of Writ Petitions are employees of State of Haryana who possess certificate of disability issued to them by the competent authority under the provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act of 1995’) and The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short the ‘Act of 2016’). They are aggrieved by Rule 143 of Haryana Civil Service (General) Rules, 2016 (for short, ‘Rules of 2016’) insofar as benefit of extension in the age of superannuation to 60 years is limited only to such differently abled employees, whose degree of disability is 70% or above or those employees who are blind and deny such benefit to other differently abled persons such as the writ petitioners. Submission is that the Act of 1995 as also the Act of 2016 contemplate a homogeneous class of differently abled persons for extending protection to them and once certificate of disability is issued to an employee by the competent authority, it is not open for the State to create a further class amongst homogeneous group of differently abled employees and restrict the benefit of extended age of superannuation only to employees having degree of disability as 70% or above or is blind and thereby retire the petitioners at the age of 58 years.

3. Rule 143 of the Rules of 2016 provides for retirement on superannuation of the employees of the State of Haryana, which reads as under:-

“143. Retirement on superannuation.— (1) Except as otherwise provided in these rules, every Government employee shall retire from service on afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of retirement prescribed for him or for the post held by him in substantive or officiating capacity, as the case may be. However, a Government employee whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the prescribed age. The age of retirement on superannuation is fifty eight years for all groups of employees except the following for whom the same is sixty years:-

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

(ii) Blind employees;

(iii) Group ‘D’ employees; and

(iv) Judicial Officers.

No Government employee shall be retained in service after attaining the age of superannuation, except in public interest and in exceptional circumstances, without the approval of Council of Ministers.

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

Note 2.─ When a Government employee is due to retire on superannuation from service an office order shall be issued on 7th of the month in which he is going to be retired and a copy of every such order shall be forwarded immediately to the Principal Accountant General, Haryana. There is no need to re-instate a Government employee who is under suspension at that time.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 18847

Cases Referred (2)