Chandigarh, Jan 9: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that disability alone does not give a government employee the right to seek an extension in service beyond the prescribed age of superannuation.
“We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there exists no right in any employee to claim extension in the age of superannuation only on account of his or her disability,” a Division Bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Rohit Kapoor observed.
The ruling came while dismissing a writ petition filed by a differently abled Group-D employee of Haryana, who had sought continuation in service up to the age of 62. Under the applicable service rules, the petitioner had retired on attaining the age of 60.
The petitioner argued that he was entitled to parity with Group-A to Group-C employees, to whom the State had extended the retirement age on the ground of disability. His counsel contended that the benefit should be uniformly applied merely because the employee was differently abled.
Rejecting the plea, the Bench noted that neither the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, nor the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, provides for extension in the age of superannuation.
“In the present case, the petitioner claims extension solely on the basis of disability,” the court said, adding that such a benefit could not be read into the statutes.
At the same time, the Bench left it open for the State of Haryana to review its policy. It noted that earlier extensions granted to certain categories of employees were not backed by any conscious policy decision.
The court referred to a batch of petitions filed by differently abled Group-A to Group-C employees with 40 per cent or more disability, which were decided in November 2025. In those cases, the court found that the State had failed to justify the rationale behind granting extensions in service.
The Bench also took note of the fact that similar benefits earlier extended in Himachal Pradesh had been withdrawn, a decision later approved by the Supreme Court.
