In a landmark ruling affirming the rights of persons with disabilities, the Supreme Court addressed whether the extension of retirement age could be selectively applied to only one category of disability. The case involved a government employee with a locomotor disability who challenged his premature retirement, arguing for parity with visually impaired employees benefiting from an earlier Office Memorandum (OM). This judgment sheds light on issues of discriminatory treatment, the interpretation of disability rights legislation, and the principle of equality in the face of executive policies.
Brief Facts:
The appellant, diagnosed with a 60% locomotor disability, was appointed as an Electrician with the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. His retirement was scheduled for September 30, 2018, upon reaching 58 years of age. Relying on a 2013 Office Memorandum that extended the retirement age to 60 for visually impaired employees, the appellant sought a similar extension. However, his request was denied, and a retirement notice was issued. The appellant challenged this before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which was later abolished, causing the matter to be transferred to the High Court. During this time, the State withdrew the OM. The appellant then filed a fresh writ petition challenging both his retirement and the withdrawal of the OM. The High Court dismissed both the writ petition and a subsequent review petition, prompting the present Supreme Court appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel argued that limiting the 2013 OM’s retirement age extension to only visually impaired employees violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, recognize all specified disabilities, including locomotor disability, as a homogeneous class. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Bhupinder Singh (2014), which extended similar benefits to all disabilities under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. The appellant contended that he had been pressing his claim since before his retirement, and the withdrawal of the 2013 OM should not affect his vested right to continue in service until age 60.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board argued that the 2013 OM applied only to visually impaired employees and was not declared discriminatory at the time of the appellant’s retirement on 30.09.2018. Thus, the appellant had no vested right to an extension. She further contended that the withdrawal of the 2013 OM on 04.11.2019 was legally valid, and even if the OM’s benefits were extended to the appellant, they could not continue beyond its withdrawal date.
Observation of the Court:
The Court addressed two key issues, whether the 2013 OM’s retirement age extension could be restricted to visually impaired employees, and whether its withdrawal in 2019 was valid.
While addressing the first issue, the Court reaffirmed its ruling in Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others (2010), reiterating that “if the promotion is denied on the ground that it will affect the safety, security and performance, then it is not denial of promotion merely on the ground of his disability, but is denial of promotion by reason of the disability plus something more, that is, adverse effect of the disability upon the employee’s performance of the higher duties or functions attached to the promotional post”.
The Court held that confining the benefit to visually impaired employees lacked an “intelligible basis” since both the 1995 and 2016 Acts treat all specified disabilities, including locomotor disability, as a homogeneous class for employment benefits. Further, the Court distinguished Union of India v. Devendra Kumar Pant (2009), noting that it dealt with promotion criteria, whereas the instant case concerned the non-discriminatory treatment of employees already in service.
On the second issue, the Court observed that absent amendments to statutory service rules, the 2013 OM could be rescinded under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, which includes the power to “add to, amend, vary or rescind” executive orders.
However, the Court emphasized that the appellant was entitled to the OM’s benefits until its withdrawal on 04.11.2019, as he fell within the specified disability category. The Court further noted that no judicial order had vested the appellant with a right to continue until age 60 before the OM’s withdrawal.
The decision of the Court:
The Top Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. It held that Kashmiri Lal Sharma was entitled to continue in service until the 2013 OM’s withdrawal and awarded him full wages and consequential benefits for the intervening period, including pension-related benefits.
Case Title: Kashmiri Lal Sharma Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr.
Case No: SLP (C) Nos.1091 - 1092 of 2023
Coram: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Counsel for Appellant: AOR Subhro Sanyal
Counsel for Respondent: Senior Advocate Abhinav Mukerji, AOR Purnima Krishna and Advocates Khushboo Hora & Archita Nigam
Read Order @ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
