The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a Haryana government school employee suffering from bipolar affective disorder who challenged the State’s decision to withdraw the extended retirement age benefit earlier available to certain differently-abled employees.
The court held that the State was entitled to fix different retirement ages for different categories of employees and that the amended rule did not amount to illegal discrimination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Background of the Case
Petitioner Madan Kumar, an employee in Haryana’s Elementary Education Department, approached the High Court after the State amended Rule 143 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016 through a notification dated February 3, 2026.
Before the amendment, differently-abled employees with 70% disability or more and visually impaired employees were allowed to continue in service till the age of 60 years. The amendment removed those provisions.
The petitioner, who has 50% disability due to bipolar affective disorder, argued that the withdrawal of the benefit violated the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g), and 21. He also relied on an earlier High Court ruling in Jora Singh vs State of Haryana.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the State had wrongly removed the benefit instead of extending it to all disabled employees equally. He argued that persons with disabilities form a homogeneous class and selective withdrawal of benefits would create discrimination.
His counsel told the court that disabled employees working as Group D staff or Judicial Officers would still continue to get retirement at 60 years because those categories retained the higher retirement age, while other disabled employees would retire at 58. According to the petitioner, this amounted to unequal treatment among persons with disabilities.
State Government’s Stand
The Haryana government defended the amendment, stating that the decision was taken to ensure uniformity in retirement age for similarly placed employees.
The State argued that different retirement ages could legally exist for different categories of service depending on the nature of duties and public service requirements. It also pointed out that earlier challenges to the same notification had already been rejected by the High Court in other cases.
Court’s Observations
A Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor said the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination between disabled employees and their “similarly situated” able-bodied counterparts performing the same work.
The Bench observed,
“Fixing different age of retirement for different categories of employees cannot be faulted if the same is based on intelligible differentia.”
The court further clarified that the State had not discriminated against disabled employees working in Group D posts or as Judicial Officers. Instead, it had maintained a separate retirement structure for those service categories as a whole, regardless of disability status.
The judges also rejected the argument that withdrawal of the extended retirement age amounted to removal of a vested right or reasonable accommodation under the disability law.
Decision
Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court concluded that the amended notification did not violate either the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act or constitutional protections.
“The State Government has taken a conscious decision to keep a uniform age of retirement for all employees, except Group ‘D’ employees and Judicial Officers,” the Bench noted while rejecting the challenge.
Case Details:
Case Title: Madan Kumar vs State of Haryana and Others
Case Number: CWP-11984-2026 (O&M)
Judges: Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor
Decision Date: April 22, 2026
