Retirement Age Extension Given To One Disabled Category Can't Be Denied To Persons With Other Disabilities : Supreme Court
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that prescribing different retirement ages for employees based on the nature of their disabilities amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14. The Court granted relief to a locomotor-disabled electrician, who was forced to retire at 58 years, while visually impaired employees were allowed to serve until 60 years. The...
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that prescribing different retirement ages for employees based on the nature of their disabilities amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14. The Court granted relief to a locomotor-disabled electrician, who was forced to retire at 58 years, while visually impaired employees were allowed to serve until 60 years.
The bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and KV Viswanathan emphasized that such distinctions between differently-abled employees are arbitrary, reinforcing the principle of equal treatment under disability laws, and thereby mandating uniform retirement benefits for all benchmark disabilities.
The appellant, a 60% locomotor-disabled electrician, was retired at 58 years (September 30, 2018) by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. However, visually impaired employees were granted an extension till 60 years under a 2013 state policy (OM 29.03.2013). Appellant challenged this policy as arbitrary discrimination, citing the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (PwD Act) and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). Later on, the OM 29.03.2013 was withdrawn.
Pursuant to the dismissal of the applications and Writ petition before the State Administrative Tribunal and High Court, prompted the Appellant to move to the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the impugned decision, the court underscored that all recognized disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 must receive equal treatment regarding retirement age, as they constitute a uniform category for employment-related benefits.
The Court reinforced this principle by citing its earlier affirmation of the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), which had unequivocally held that the law mandates parity in service benefits across all disability categories protected under both the disability rights legislation i.e., PwD Act and RPwD Act.
“there appeared no intelligible basis to confer benefit of age extension to one disabled category and deny it to the other when both are specified in the 1995 Act as well as the 2016 Act. In this view of the matter, if benefit of extension of retirement age is available to visually impaired category, the same ought to be available to other categories of disabilities specified in the 1995 Act as reiterated in the 2016 Act.”, the court observed.
Resultantly, the Court held that the benefit of extension of retirement age as provided under the OM dated 29.03.2013 could not have been confined to the visually impaired category. Rather, it should be available to persons suffering from all such benchmark disabilities as are specified in the 1995 Act and the 2016 Act.
While the state's 2019 withdrawal (OM 04.11.2019) of the extension was upheld under the General Clauses Act, the Court ruled that the Appellant had a legitimate expectation to the benefit until the withdrawal date.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: KASHMIRI LAL SHARMA VERSUS HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. & ANR.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 646
Click here to read/download the judgment
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Subhro Sanyal, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv. Ms. Khushboo Hora, Adv. Ms. Archita Nigam, Adv. Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR