In a recent and vital judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that extending retirement age benefits to employees with one type of disability, while denying the same to those with other disabilities, violates the constitutional principle of equality under Article 14.
A two-judge bench, comprising Justices Manoj Misra and KV Viswanathan, passed this ruling while hearing a case involving a locomotor-disabled electrician employed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. The appellant, who had a 60% locomotor disability, was made to retire at the age of 58 years on 30 September 2018. However, employees with visual impairments were allowed to continue working until the age of 60 under the State’s policy OM dated 29 March 2013.
Read also: Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Odisha IAS Officer Manish Agarwal Upon Surrender in Case Linked
The appellant challenged this policy, arguing that it was arbitrary and discriminatory. He cited provisions under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PwD Act) and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). However, both the State Administrative Tribunal and the High Court had dismissed his petitions, leading him to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court set aside these decisions, stating that the distinction between different disabilities in matters of retirement age is arbitrary and contradicts the principle of equal treatment. The Court emphasized that employees with all benchmark disabilities recognized under the RPwD Act, 2016 should receive uniform retirement benefits.
Read also: Supreme Court Initiates Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings Over Remarks by Varprad Media Editor-in-Chief Ajay
Quoting from its previous affirmation of the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s ruling in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), the Court reiterated:
“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 bench concluded that the benefit of retirement age extension, as provided under OM dated 29 March 2013, could not be restricted to only visually impaired employees. Instead, it must be extended to all benchmark disabilities recognized under the disability rights laws. This includes disabilities mentioned in both the 1995 Act and the 2016 Act.
Read also: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Elevation of Three Advocates as Rajasthan High Court
However, the Court acknowledged that the State’s 2019 decision (OM dated 4 November 2019) to withdraw the retirement age extension was valid under the General Clauses Act. Nonetheless, it clarified that the appellant had a legitimate expectation to receive the extended retirement benefit until the date of withdrawal.
In its final order, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the earlier decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court. The Court's decision reinforces the principle of equal treatment of employees with disabilities and mandates that retirement age benefits cannot be selectively applied based on the type of disability.
Case Title: KASHMIRI LAL SHARMA VERSUS HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. & ANR.
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
