Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Haryana’s Decision to Withdraw Extended Retirement Age for Disabled Employees; Says No Discrimination Among ‘Similarly Situated’ Employees
Case Name: Madan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 22 April 2026
Citation: CWP-11984-2026
Bench: Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that withdrawal of the benefit of extended retirement age for differently-abled employees under the Haryana Civil Services Rules does not violate the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, so long as there is no discrimination between disabled employees and their similarly situated able-bodied counterparts. The Court ruled that fixation of different retirement ages for different categories of employees based on intelligible differentia is legally permissible.
Summary: The petitioner, suffering from bipolar affective disorder with 50% disability and serving in the Elementary Education Department, Haryana, challenged the notification dated 03.02.2026 whereby clause (i) and Note 3 of Rule 143(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016 were omitted. The deleted provisions earlier granted retirement age up to 60 years to differently-abled employees with 70% disability and above, besides certain other categories.
The petitioner argued that although the benefit of enhanced retirement age was withdrawn for differently-abled employees, it continued for Group ‘D’ employees and Judicial Officers. Consequently, differently-abled employees serving in those categories would continue receiving the benefit while other disabled employees would retire at 58 years, thereby creating an impermissible classification within a homogeneous class of disabled persons contrary to the RPwD Act and Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed upon the earlier decision in Jora Singh v. State of Haryana.
The State defended the notification by asserting that the amendment aimed at maintaining uniformity and removing discrimination. It was argued that the State is competent to prescribe different retirement ages for different classes of employees depending upon the nature of duties and service exigencies.
The High Court rejected the petitioner’s challenge and clarified that the RPwD Act prohibits discrimination between disabled employees and their similarly situated able-bodied counterparts performing the same nature of work. The Court observed that Group ‘D’ employees and Judicial Officers formed separate service categories for whom distinct retirement ages could legitimately be prescribed based upon intelligible differentia.
The Bench further held that withdrawal of extended retirement age did not violate any vested rights under either the RPwD Act or the Constitution. Relying upon earlier precedents including Rajnish Kumar and Kashmiri Lal Sharma, the Court concluded that the State’s decision was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the validity of the Haryana Government notification omitting the provisions granting enhanced retirement age to differently-abled employees and held that no violation of the RPwD Act or constitutional guarantees was made out. Pending applications were also disposed of.