Retirement at 60 for Disabled Employees: The Jora Singh Judgment and What the State Did Next
How a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court struck down the 70% disability threshold for extended superannuation — and why the State’s subsequent gazette notification cannot undo what the Court declared.
On 6th November 2025, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court delivered a landmark order affecting over a lakh differently abled government employees across Haryana. On 3rd February 2026, the State responded — not by complying, but by amending the very rule the Court had read down. This article examines the judgment, the notification, and why accrued rights survive.
The Background: A Flawed Classification
Rule 143 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016 prescribed the age of superannuation at 58 years for all government employees, with exceptions for four categories who could serve till 60: differently abled employees with 70% or above disability, blind employees, Group ‘D’ employees, and Judicial Officers.
The 70% threshold was the bone of contention. Under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 [Section 2(t)] and The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [Section 2(r)], the protected class — “persons with disability” and “persons with benchmark disability” respectively — is defined at 40% or above. The State, by fixing the retirement benefit at 70%, was effectively creating a sub-classification within a class that the Parliament had defined as homogeneous.
Note 3 appended to Rule 143 added a further requirement: even employees claiming 70%+ disability had to be examined by a Medical Board of PGIMS, Rohtak — bypassing the disability certificates issued by competent District Medical Authorities under the statutory regime of the 1995 and 2016 Acts.
The Judgment: Jora Singh v. State of Haryana
The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor disposed of 134 Writ Petitions and 3 LPAs in a consolidated order. The Court called upon the Chief Secretary to explain the rationale for the 70% threshold. The response was telling — the only justification offered was a representation made by the Physically Disabled Employees’ Association itself requesting the 70% benchmark. No independent policy rationale, no material on record, no intelligible differentia was established.
1. Rule 143 was read down — all differently abled employees with disability certificates under the 1995/2016 Acts (i.e., 40% and above) are entitled to the benefit of extended superannuation at 60 years.
2. Note 3 was quashed — the requirement of fresh certification from PGIMS Rohtak was struck down. Disability determination is governed by the statutory provisions of the 1995 and 2016 Acts.
3. The Court observed that it remains open for the State to take a “conscious decision” whether or not to allow extended superannuation for disabled persons.
The Court relied squarely on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kashmiri Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1355, the earlier Punjab precedent in Bhupinder Singh (affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8855/2014), and the three-Judge Bench decision in Deaf Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 173. The judicial consensus is uniform: persons with benchmark disability of 40% and above constitute a single homogeneous class, and any sub-classification within this class is arbitrary under Article 14.
The State’s Response: Gazette Notification dated 03.02.2026
Rather than complying with the Court’s direction to extend the benefit to all disabled employees with 40%+ disability, the Haryana Government issued Gazette Notification No. 11/58/2023-1FR/27758 on 3rd February 2026 — the Haryana Civil Services (General) Amendment Rules, 2026. The notification simply omitted clauses (i) and (ii) from Rule 143(1), along with Note 1 and Note 3.
The effect is striking: instead of broadening the class from 70%+ to 40%+ as the Court directed, the State eliminated the benefit entirely. No differently abled employee — whether with 40%, 70%, or 100% disability — now gets the benefit of retirement at 60. Meanwhile, Group ‘D’ employees and Judicial Officers continue to enjoy the extended age.
Crucially, the notification expressly states: “They shall come into force with effect from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.” This is purely prospective operation.
The Critical Question: What About Rights Already Accrued?
This is where the principles of prospective operation of gazette notifications — examined by the Constitution Bench in CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 1 and reinforced in Union of India v. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills, (2021) 2 SCC 209 — become decisive.
“Every human being is entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on the existing law and should not find that his plans have been retrospectively upset. This principle of law is known as lex prospicit non respicit: law looks forward not backward.”
— Constitution Bench, CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 1
Between 6th November 2025 (date of the Jora Singh judgment) and 3rd February 2026 (date of the gazette notification), the operative law in Haryana — as declared by the Division Bench — was that all employees with 40%+ disability were entitled to retire at 60. Any employee who attained the age of 58 during this period acquired a vested right to continue till 60.
The Kashmiri Lal Sharma analogy is directly on point. There, the Supreme Court held that even after the Himachal Pradesh Government withdrew its Office Memorandum extending the 60-year benefit to visually impaired employees, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit until the date of withdrawal. The same logic applies here: the Jora Singh order operated as law from 06.11.2025, and the State’s amendment takes over only from 03.02.2026.
Categories of Affected Employees
| # | Category | Entitlement |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Employees with 40%+ disability who attained 58 years before 06.11.2025 (covered by interim orders) | Entitled to continue till 60. Protected by Court’s interim orders and the final judgment. |
| 2 | Employees with 40%+ disability who attained 58 years between 06.11.2025 and 03.02.2026 | Entitled to continue till 60. Vested rights accrued under the judicial declaration. The prospective notification cannot extinguish these rights. |
| 3 | Employees with 40%+ disability who attain 58 years on or after 03.02.2026 | Not entitled to extended superannuation under the amended rules. They retire at 58 like all other employees (subject to any fresh challenge). |
| 4 | Employees with 70%+ disability or blindness who were already serving under the old Rule 143 | Accrued rights under the unamended rule. The prospective omission cannot curtail their tenure mid-service. |
Is the Notification Itself Vulnerable?
There is a strong argument that the notification dated 03.02.2026 is itself susceptible to challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution. Consider: Group ‘D’ employees and Judicial Officers continue to enjoy the 60-year retirement age. But differently abled employees — a constitutionally and statutorily protected class — have been stripped of the benefit entirely. The State’s action appears to be a colourable exercise of power, designed not to advance any legitimate policy objective but to circumvent the judicial declaration in Jora Singh.
Furthermore, Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 requires the appropriate Government to ensure that persons with benchmark disabilities enjoy the right to live in the community and are provided with adequate measures for their livelihood. Section 3 prohibits discrimination on the ground of disability. Withdrawing a benefit from disabled employees — which was available for nearly four decades — immediately after a court ordered its extension to the broader class, raises serious questions about the State’s bona fides.
Key Takeaways
- The Jora Singh judgment (06.11.2025) continues to have full operative force for employees who attained 58 years prior to 03.02.2026.
- The gazette notification being expressly prospective, it cannot extinguish accrued rights that crystallised under the Court’s order.
- The 134 petitioners before the Division Bench are protected by the judicial decree itself. Non-compliance invites contempt proceedings.
- Employees with 70%+ disability or blindness who were already serving under the old Rule 143 have accrued rights that survive the amendment.
- The notification may itself face a fresh Article 14 challenge as being discriminatory, arbitrary, and a colourable exercise of power.
The Road Ahead
For affected employees who fall in Categories 1 and 2 above, the immediate steps would include filing contempt proceedings for non-compliance with the Jora Singh order and seeking enforcement of the benefit for the period it was in force. For Category 3 employees and the broader disabled community, a fresh writ petition challenging the notification as violative of Article 14, the 2016 Act, and India’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would be the appropriate remedy.
The State of Haryana has the sovereign power to fix retirement ages under Article 309. But that power is not absolute — it must be exercised within the four corners of the Constitution, particularly Article 14 and the protective framework of the disability legislation. Withdrawing a benefit from the most vulnerable category of employees, while retaining it for others, is not a “conscious decision” — it is a discriminatory one.