HC Dismisses 32 Petitions by Disabled Employees Seeking Retirement Extension to 60 Years

Haryana Disabled Employees: Punjab & Haryana HC rejects 32 petitions seeking retirement extension to 60 for disabled Haryana govt staff, upholding a Feb 2026 rule amendment that withdrew the benefit.

North Desk Correspondent

Chandigarh, July 19

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed 32 connected writ petitions filed by Haryana disabled employees with benchmark disabilities who sought to continue in service until the age of 60, closing off — for now — a benefit the same court had extended to them just months earlier.

In an order dated this week, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that the issue was “squarely covered” by a Division Bench ruling in Rajnish Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana, which had already upheld the state government’s decision to strip the extended retirement benefit from its rules. “Judicial discipline and propriety require this Court to uniformly apply the said view,” the order states, adding that it would “not be appropriate for this Court to re-examine the very same issue.”

READ ALSO: Dera Sacha Sauda Violence Case: How Forensics Sank Haryana’s Kaithal Dera Violence Case

The reversal, in brief

Haryana Disabled Employees: The dispute traces back to a Division Bench judgment in Jora Singh and others vs. State of Haryana (decided November 6, 2025), which held that all persons with benchmark disabilities (not merely blind employees or those with 70% or higher disability) formed a single homogeneous class entitled to continue in service up to 60 years under Rule 143 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016, read with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The Haryana government responded on February 3, 2026, by amending Rule 143 to delete the extended-retirement provision entirely. Employees who had relied on Jora Singh (including several who had already received orders extending their service) challenged the amendment, arguing it could not apply retrospectively to rights they claimed had already vested.

That challenge was rejected by a separate Division Bench in Rajnish Kumar vs. State of Haryana which held that no employee holds a vested or indefeasible right to a particular retirement age, and that the state, exercising its rule-making power under Article 309 of the Constitution, was free to alter service conditions — including retirement age — even for existing employees.

A subsequent single-judge ruling in Madan Kumar vs. State of Haryana reached the same conclusion, holding that differing retirement ages across employee categories do not amount to unlawful discrimination so long as there is an “intelligible differentia.”

What the July 15 order does for Haryana Disabled Employees

Haryana Disabled Employees: Justice Brar’s order effectively closes the door on the 32 petitioners — including named petitioners such as Rohtas Kumar, Devender Kumar, Sultan Singh, and Jitender Kumar Kaushik — who had petitioned across late 2025 and into mid-2026 seeking the benefit of the now-defunct rule. All 32 writ petitions stand dismissed.

Advocate Vikas Chatrath, one of the lawyers in the case, pointed out that the order does carve out one protection: employees who continued working past 58 under interim court orders will keep the salary, pension, and other consequential benefits for the period they actually served. Haryana’s competent authorities have been directed to examine each such case individually.

What remains to be seen is whether the matter proceeds further — by way of appeal to a larger bench or the Supreme Court.

READ ALSO: Dera Sacha Sauda Violence Case: How Forensics Sank Haryana’s Kaithal Dera Violence Case

Follow North Desk on WhatsApp for the latest from Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb7ccdxJENy2H87DBG3E