Punjab and Haryana HC struck down Haryana’s retirement policy for disabled employees, referring to it as unconstitutional
The policy restricted retirement age extension only for 70 per cent or more disability or blindness, violating the 40 per cent benchmark rule
The government’s justification and original policy files for this restriction were untraceable
Retirement Policy For Disabled Employee In Haryana Unconstitutional, Rules Punjab And Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court stated the Haryana government's superannuation age policy for employees with disabilities as arbitrary and unconstitutional, and struck it down to ensure the right to equality
Summary
Advertisement
In a recent judgment related to the retirement of government employees with disabilities, the Punjab and Haryana Court struck down the state policy that arbitrarily restricted retirement age to 60 years. The division of the court, comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, ruled that the policy was unconstitutional and violative of constitutional provisions. The court stated that the provisions in the state policy are violative of Article 14, which pertains to the Right to Equality.
According to a Times of India report, the core issue centered on Rule 143 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016. Under this rule, the superannuation age was raised from 58 to 60 years for government employees suffering from disability, but restricted it to only those suffering from 70 per cent or more disability or blindness. Employees who suffer from less than the threshold 70 per cent disability were compelled to retire at the age of 58 years, despite having officially certified disabilities above the benchmark standard of 40 per cent as per law.
Advertisement
Summary
The court stressed that the classification of disabilities for extending retirement age lacked rationale, noting that the applicable laws, the Act of 1995 and the Act of 2016, specify 40 per cent or above disability or benchmark disability to provide protection and benefits to the differently-abled persons.
Per the report, the bench noted that it “failed to understand how the state govt could come out with a policy restricting the benefit of extended age of superannuation only for employees suffering from a disability of 70% or above or blindness” when the Acts set the standard at 40 per cent.
Further, the court found that restriction of benefits was not based on “any intelligent differentia, nor any valid object is sought to be achieved by such classification”, and held the classification as “arbitrary”.
Advertisement
This ruling will benefit several employees who filed petitions to challenge the restrictive rule. The petitioners’ counsel argued that the rule is in contravention of Article 14 and the provisions of the Act of 2016, and that persons with disabilities should be treated as a homogeneous class, making any further division untenable.
Meanwhile, the Chief Secretary of Haryana, in response to the petitions, acknowledged a significant lapse, as there is no justification in government records for why retirement age enhancement was limited only to 70 per cent or more disability. The government also revealed that the original files related to the 1988 and 1996 policy decisions were “not traceable”.
Although the government tried to present the argument that the 70 per cent threshold was introduced following a representation from an association of differently-abled employees in 2006, the petitioners argued against it.
Advertisement
After hearing all the arguments, the court held that the impugned decision was based on the ground that it was asked for by the differently-abled employees association, which the court found not justifiable and not based on any “Intelligent Differentia”.
The judgment invalidated Rule 143 to the extent of restricting the benefit to ensure the right to equality. The judgment paves the way for all government employees in Haryana with a benchmark disability of at least 40 per cent, entitled to the extended superannuation age of 60 years.
Show comments
Published At: