'Intelligible Differentia': High Court Upholds Haryana Notification Removing Extended Retirement Age Benefit For Certain Disabled Employees

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the Haryana Government's decision to amend its service rules and withdraw the benefit of extended retirement age for certain categories of differently-abled employees, holding that fixing different retirement ages across employee categories does not amount to unlawful discrimination.

Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor said, "It is well settled that the employer is well within its rights to fix different age of retirement for different categories of employees, keeping in view the nature of work and exigencies of public service. The State of Haryana, keeping in view such exigencies, had carved out an exception with regard to the Group 'D' employees and Judicial Officers. The provisions of the RPwD Act would stand violated, had the State discriminated with the differently-abled employees working on such posts and would have fixed a different age of retirement qua them, while granting the benefit of extended age of superannuation only to able-bodied employees. This is not the course adopted."

The Court found that 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, and have not discriminated amongst 'similarly situated' employees.

Fixing different age of retirement for different categories of employees cannot be faulted if the same is based on intelligible differentia, it said. 

The petitioner contended that the amendment violated the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, arguing that it resulted in discriminatory treatment among disabled employees.

It was submitted that while the benefit of extended superannuation had been withdrawn for most differently-abled employees, it continued indirectly for those in Group 'D' posts and Judicial Officers, thereby creating an impermissible classification within a homogenous class.

The State, however, defended the amendment, stating that it was aimed at ensuring uniformity and removing perceived disparities, and that the government is entitled to prescribe different retirement ages based on the nature of duties and service exigencies.

Rejecting the challenge, the Court held that the prohibition under the RPwD Act is against discrimination between persons with disabilities and their similarly situated able-bodied counterparts, not against classification based on the nature of posts.

It clarified that although persons with disabilities constitute a homogenous class, differential service conditions across distinct categories of employment do not automatically amount to discrimination.

The Bench observed that the State had maintained a uniform retirement age for all employees except specific categories such as Group 'D' employees and Judicial Officers, based on intelligible differentia linked to service requirements. It emphasized that no separate or adverse retirement condition had been imposed specifically on disabled employees within the same category of posts.

On the argument of withdrawal of “reasonable accommodation,” the Court held that no vested right had been taken away and reiterated its earlier findings that such policy decisions fall within the domain of the State unless shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory.

Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it, affirming that the impugned notification does not violate either the RPwD Act or constitutional guarantees.

Mr. Keshav Gupta, Advocate For the petitioner.

Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

Title: Madan Kumar v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 169

Click here to read order