'All Disabilities Must Get Equal Treatment': SC Strikes Down Discriminatory Retirement Policy

News18

30-05-2025

Last Updated:
The Court observed that such arbitrary distinctions among differently-abled individuals violate the principles enshrined in disability rights legislation.
The Supreme Court has recently held that prescribing different retirement ages based on the nature of disability amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court observed that such arbitrary distinctions among differently-abled individuals violate the principles enshrined in disability rights legislation and entitle all benchmark disabilities to equal service benefits, including retirement age.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice KV Viswanathan made the observation in the case of a 60 per cent locomotor-disabled electrician who was compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, even though visually impaired employees were allowed to serve until 60 years under an Office Memorandum (OM) dated March 29, 2013.
The Appellant challenged the policy as discriminatory and violative of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and its successor, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
His representations before the State Administrative Tribunal and the Himachal Pradesh High Court were dismissed, prompting an Appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a detailed order, the Court set aside the impugned policy, holding that all benchmark disabilities under the RPwD Act, 2016 form a single homogenous class for the purpose of service-related benefits and must be treated uniformly.
'Prescribing different retirement ages for employees based solely on the nature of their disability is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. There appeared no intelligible basis to confer the benefit of age extension to one disabled category and deny it to the other when both are specified under the 1995 and 2016 Acts," the Court observed.
It added that while the visually impaired were granted a two-year extension under the 2013 OM, the same benefit should have been extended to all employees suffering from any benchmark disability, including locomotor disability, as listed under the applicable disability laws.
The Court relied on its previous affirmation of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), where it was held that parity in service benefits must be maintained across all disability categories covered by the PwD and RPwD Acts.
While the Court upheld the state's subsequent withdrawal of the OM on November 4, 2019, under the General Clauses Act, it recognized the appellant's legitimate expectation to continue employment until the withdrawal date. Therefore, the appellant was held entitled to the benefit of the extension in retirement age up to that point.
'Such discrimination offends not only Article 14 but also undermines the very spirit of the disability rights framework that envisions equal opportunity and full participation of persons with disabilities," the Court remarked.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal. 'The impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2021 of the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellant is set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of continuance in service until 04.11.2019. In consequence, he shall be entitled to full wages from 01.10.2018 to 04.11.2019, with all consequential benefits that may impact his pension," it ordered.
Sukriti Mishra, a Lawbeat correspondent, graduated in 2022 and worked as a trainee journalist for 4 months, after which she picked up on the nuances of reporting well. She extensively covers courts in Delhi.
First Published:
May 30, 2025, 15:58 IST