CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 2 of 46

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Responde nt(s)

8. CWP-3148-2024 (O&M)

NARESH KUMAR ….Petitione r(s)

V/S

HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER

….Respondent(s)

9. CWP-3307-2024 (O&M)

SATISH KUMAR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

10. CWP-3927-2024 (O&M)

SURJEET SINGH ….Petition er(s)

V/S

DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND OTHERS

….Respondent(s )

11. CWP-4458-2024 (O&M)

TARSEM SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

12. CWP-4481-2024 (O&M)

VED PARKASH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

13. CWP-5411-2024 (O&M)

PARDEEP CHAND SANGHI ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responde nt(s)

14. CWP-5470-2024 (O&M)

PRADEEP KUMAR ….Petition er(s)

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 3 of 46

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Responde nt(s)

15. CWP-5476-2024 (O&M)

PARKASH SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Responde nt(s)

16. CWP-5485-2024 (O&M)

JOGINDER SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

17. CWP-6490-2024 (O&M)

GULZAR SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responde nt(s)

18. CWP-4250-2024 (O&M)

GAJRAJ SINGH ….Petitione r(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

19. CWP-5970-2024 (O&M)

NIRMALA DEVI ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ….Respondent(s)

20. CWP-6476-2024 (O&M)

PUSHPA DEVI ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

21. CWP-6555-2024 (O&M)

BALWANT SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 4 of 46

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

22. CWP-7720-2024 (O&M)

SUMER SINGH BHUWAL ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responde nt(s)

23. CWP-9857-2024 (O&M)

KARAN SINGH ….Petitioner (s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responden t(s)

24. CWP-7473-2024 (O&M)

BIR SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

25. CWP-29482-2023 (O&M)

HARI PARKASH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responde nt(s)

26. CWP-6662-2024 (O&M)

RAJ SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responde nt(s)

27. CWP-6569-2024 (O&M)

SAJJAN SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responde nt(s)

28. CWP-7297-2024 (O&M)

SURINDER SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responde nt(s)

29. CWP-11326-2024 (O&M)

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 5 of 46

SHIRI BHAGWAN ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

30. CWP-9113-2024 (O&M)

BEER SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responde nt(s)

31. CWP-12637-2024 (O&M)

KAILASH CHANDER ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

32. CWP-14352-2024 (O&M)

RAM PHAL ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

33. CWP-14876-2024 (O&M)

OM PARKASH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

34. CWP-14921-2024 (O&M)

VIJAY SAINI ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

35. CWP-16070-2024 (O&M)

SUSHILA DEVI ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ….Respondent(s)

36. CWP-14948-2024 (O&M)

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 6 of 46

MEENA KUMARI ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responde nt(s)

37. CWP-13159-2024 (O&M)

RAMESH KUMAR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

38. CWP-37361-2019 (O&M)

SAMUNDER SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

39. CWP-14501-2024 (O&M)

KULBIR SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

40. CWP-14968-2024 (O&M)

LAXMAN SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

41. CWP-15391-2024 (O&M)

MAHENDER SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

42. CWP-16550-2024 (O&M)

JAGMAL SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

43. CWP-19654-2024 (O&M)

PAT RAM ….Petitioner(s)

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 7 of 46

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

44. CWP-19952-2024 (O&M)

VIJAY KUMAR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

45. CWP-23480-2024 (O&M)

SHAMSHEER SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ….Respondent( s)

46. CWP-25523-2024 (O&M)

MANJEET KAUR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

47. CWP-29119-2024 (O&M)

DHIRAJ YADAV ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

48. CWP-29849-2024 (O&M)

SOM CHAND ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responde nt(s)

49. CWP-29925-2024 (O&M)

KAUSHALYA DEVI ALIAS KOSHILYA DEVI ….Petitio ner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

50. CWP-14961-2024 (O&M)

BIJENDER SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 8 of 46

51. CWP-18859-2024 (O&M)

UMESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

52. CWP-22244-2024 (O&M)

KRISHNA KUMARI ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

53. CWP-24163-2024 (O&M)

SUNITA DEVI ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

54. CWP-26404-2024 (O&M)

SURESH KUMAR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ….Respondent( s)

55. CWP-27628-2024 (O&M)

VISHMBER SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

56. CWP-28538-2024 (O&M)

KIRANJIT KAUR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ….Respondent( s)

57. CWP-16443-2024 (O&M)

SURESH KUMAR BHARDWAJ ….Petitioner( s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

58. CWP-33051-2024 (O&M)

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 9 of 46

ASHOK KUMAR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

59. CWP-35373-2024 (O&M)

RAJINDER SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

60. CWP-853-2025 (O&M)

GOBIND RAM ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

61. CWP-955-2025 (O&M)

KIRAN BALA ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responden t(s)

62. CWP-12779-2024 (O&M)

KULDEEP SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responde nt(s)

63. CWP-12785-2024 (O&M)

KRISHAN KUMAR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ….Respondent(s)

64. CWP-12856-2024 (O&M)

BALJEET SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

65. CWP-13392-2024 (O&M)

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 10 of 46

KAMLESH KUMARI ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

66. CWP-13734-2024 (O&M)

MANOJ GHAI ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

67. CWP-15770-2024 (O&M)

BALWINDER SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

68. CWP-32365-2024 (O&M)

OM SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

69. CWP-30130-2024 (O&M)

NARESH KUMAR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responde nt(s)

70. CWP-14179-2024 (O&M)

MURTI DEVI ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

71. CWP-32996-2024 (O&M)

KRISHAN KUMAR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

72. LPA-733-2020 (O&M)

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Appellant(s)

V/S

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 11 of 46

SHAKUNTLA DEVI AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

73. CWP-33651-2024 (O&M)

RAVI JYOTI ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

74. CWP-4947-2025 (O&M)

DR. MEENU SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

75. CWP-3559-2025 (O&M)

NAMRATA CHAUHAN ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

76. CWP-3074-2025 (O&M)

BIJENDER SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

77. CWP-2436-2025 (O&M)

VINEYPAL SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

78. CWP-4614-2025 (O&M)

KASHMIRI LAL ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

79. CWP-5086-2025 (O&M)

PREM ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 12 of 46

80. CWP-31187-2024 (O&M)

SULTAN SINGH AND ANOTHER ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

81. CWP-2040-2025 (O&M)

JOGINDER SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

82. CWP-32844-2024 (O&M)

HARI KISHAN ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

83. CWP-1290-2025 (O&M)

AZAD SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA ….Respondent(s )

84. CWP-7716-2025 (O&M)

LEELAWATI ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

85. CWP-7820-2025 (O&M)

SUBHASH CHANDER ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

86. CWP-10374-2025 (O&M)

DILRAJ HOODA ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

87. CWP-10520-2025 (O&M)

VIRENDER SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 13 of 46

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

88. CWP-20637-2024 (O&M)

SURENDRA PAL SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

89. CWP-4358-2025 (O&M)

SOM DUTT ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

90. CWP-11362-2025 (O&M)

JAGROOP SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

91. CWP-11055-2025 (O&M)

SHYAM LAL ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

92. CWP-11012-2025 (O&M)

RAM PAL ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

93. CWP-13029-2025

RAMESH KUMAR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

94. CWP-13911-2025 (O&M)

JAGDISH SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 14 of 46

95. CWP-11848-2025 (O&M)

ASHOK KUMAR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

96. CWP-11418-2025 (O&M)

JAI BHAGWAN ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

97. CWP-13922-2025 (O&M)

SUNITA ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

98. CWP-12713-2025 (O&M)

SATYAWAN ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

99. CWP-8579-2025 (O&M)

JITENDER KUMAR KAUSHIK ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

100. CWP-14105-2025 (O&M)

YAD RAM ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

101. CWP-14346-2025 (O&M)

KULINTA DEVI ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

102. CWP-14988-2025 (O&M)

OM PARKASH RANA ….Petitioner(s)

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 15 of 46

V/S

THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

103. CWP-16974-2025 (O&M)

DEVENDER KUMAR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

104. CWP-17637-2025 (O&M)

AJIT SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

105. CWP-17780-2025 (O&M)

RAJENDER SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

106. CWP-18754-2025 (O&M)

ROOPRAM ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

107. LPA-1480-2025 (O&M)

RAM NIWAS ….Appellant(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ….Respondent(s )

108. CWP-16156-2025 (O&M)

KARAMVIR NAIN ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ….Respond ent(s)

109. CWP-1977-2021 (O&M)

CHANDI RAM ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 16 of 46

110. CWP-15843-2024 (O&M)

MADHAV CHANDER ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

111. CWP-23052-2025 (O&M)

SATYAWAN SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

112. CWP-23656-2025 (O&M)

RANJIT SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

113. CWP-23985-2025 (O&M)

ISHWAR SINGH MOR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

114. CWP-6678-2024 (O&M)

BRAHAM DUTT ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

115. CWP-25844-2025 (O&M)

RAM PAL ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

116. CWP-24576-2025 (O&M)

SHADI RAM ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ….Respondent(s)

117. CWP-5839-2025

GIRRAJ SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 17 of 46

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

118. CWP-7174-2025

DUSHYANT KUMAR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

119. CWP-11034-2025 (O&M)

SUKANYA ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

120. CWP-26985-2025 (O&M)

SULTAN SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

121. CWP-18646-2021 (O&M)

RAM CHARAN ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

122. CWP-7844-2022 (O&M)

BALJEET SINGH NAIN ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

HARYANA DAIRY DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE FEDERATION

LTD AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

123. CWP-9625-2023 (O&M)

RAJ PAL ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

124. CWP-27478-2025 (O&M)

SUNEHARA SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 18 of 46

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responden t(s)

125. CWP-28283-2025 (O&M)

MAHINDER SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(

126. CWP-28250-2025 (O&M)

BHAYA RAM ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

127. CWP-30035-2025 (O&M)

CHANDRAVIR SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responde nt(s)

128. CWP-30466-2025 (O&M)

JAGDISH KUMAR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

129. CWP-30512-2025 (O&M)

SURRENDER KHOKHAR ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

130. CWP-31122-2025 (O&M)

OMBIR SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

131. CWP-17988-2025 (O&M)

JASBINDER SINGH ….Petitio ner(s)

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Responde nt(s)

132. CWP-28937-2025 (O&M)

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 19 of 46

ANIL KUMAR ….Petitioner(s )

V/S

THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

133. CWP-28982-2025 (O&M)

KAMLA RANI ….Petitioner(s )

V/S

THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)

134. CWP-31484-2025 (O&M)

JASBIR SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

135. LPA-296-2019 (O&M)

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Appellant(s)

V/S

BALWANT SINGH AND OTHERS ….Respondent (s)

136. CWP-7898-2025 (O&M)

SATBIR SINGH ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

137. CWP-31604-2025 (O&M)

SUMAN BALA ….Petitioner(s)

V/S

THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

ARGUED BY :-

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate,

Mr. Anurag Goyal, Sr. Advocate, with

Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocate,

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 20 of 46

Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate, with

Mr. Chirag Kundu, Advocate,

Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Anuj Chauhan, Advocate and

Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate,

Mr. Prateek Singh, Advocate,

Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate,

Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate,

Mr. Ankit Chahal, Advocate,

Mr. Jaswinder Singh Rana, Advocate for

Mr. S.K. Malik, Advocate,

Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate,

Mr. Jawahar Lal Goyal, Advocate and

Mr. Parth Goyal, Advocate,

Mr. Ankit Chahal, Advocate,

Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate,

Mr. Ankur Kaushik, Advocate,

Mr. G.S. Gopera, Advocate,

Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate,

Mr. K.S. Panwar, Advocate,

Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate,

Mr. Surender Pal, Advocate,

Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate,

Mr. Gaurav Tyagi, Advocate,

Mr. Garvit Mittal, Advocate,

Mr. Onkar Chauhan, Advocate,

Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate,

Mr. Harsh Sharma, Advocate,

Mr. Dev Kumar Ahlawat, Advocate,

Mr. Ajay K. Yadav, Advocate,

Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate,

Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate,

Mr. Sandeep Takhan, Advocate,

Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate,

Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate,

Ms. Mamta Saini, Advocate,

Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate,

Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate,

Mr. M.S. Randhawa, Advocate,

Mr. Bhupander Ghanghas, Advocate,

Mr. Arvind Galav, Advocate,

Ms. Alka Sharma, Advocate,

Mr. Karamveer Singh Banyana, Advocate,

Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate for

Mr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate,

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 21 of 46

Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate,

Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate,

Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate and

Mr. Raj Kumar Makkad, Advocate

Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate,

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate,

Mr. Amish Sharma, Advocate,

Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate,

Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate,

Mr. Parduman Garg, Advocate,

Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate,

Mr. Bhupender Ghangas, Advocate,

Ms. Bindu Tanwar, Advocate,

Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate,

Mr.Viren Sibal, Advocate,

Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate,

Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate for

Mr. Surender Pal, Advocate,

Mr. Varun Veer Chauhan, Advocate,

Mr. Shiv Charan Bhola, Advocate,

Mr. Naveen Lohiya, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. AG, Haryana,

Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. AG, Haryana

Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate for PGI in LPA-296-2019.

Mr. Shivam J. Malik, Advocate for respondent No.1 in LPA-296-

2019.

Mr. Rajvir Singh Sihag, Advocate for respondent No.2 in CWP-

14988-2025 and CWP-31484-2025.

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1.This order shall dispose of the aforementioned bunch of 134 Writ

Petitions and 03 LPAs, as the issue involved in these cases is common.

However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP-

2340-2023.

2.The petitioners in this bunch of Writ Petitions are employees of

State of Haryana who possess certificate of disability issued to them by the

competent authority under the provisions of The Persons with Disabilities

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 22 of 46

(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995

(for short ‘the Act of 1995’) and The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,

2016 (for short the ‘Act of 2016’). They are aggrieved by Rule 143 of Haryana

Civil Service (General) Rules, 2016 (for short, ‘Rules of 2016’) insofar as

benefit of extension in the age of superannuation to 60 years is limited only to

such differently abled employees, whose degree of disability is 70% or above

or those employees who are blind and deny such benefit to other differently

abled persons such as the writ petitioners. Submission is that the Act of 1995

as also the Act of 2016 contemplate a homogeneous class of differently abled

persons for extending protection to them and once certificate of disability is

issued to an employee by the competent authority, it is not open for the State

to create a further class amongst homogeneous group of differently abled

employees and restrict the benefit of extended age of superannuation only to

employees having degree of disability as 70% or above or is blind and thereby

retire the petitioners at the age of 58 years.

3.Rule 143 of the Rules of 2016 provides for retirement on

superannuation of the employees of the State of Haryana, which reads as

under:-

“

143. Retirement on superannuation.— (1) Except as

otherwise provided in these rules, every Government employee

shall retire from service on afternoon of the last day of the month

in which he attains the age of retirement prescribed for him or

for the post held by him in substantive or officiating capacity, as

the case may be. However, a Government employee whose date

of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the

afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the

prescribed age. The age of retirement on superannuation is fifty

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 23 of 46

eight years for all groups of employees except the following for

whom the same is sixty years:-

(i) Differently-abled employees having minimum degree

of disability of 70% and above;

(ii) Blind employees;

(iii) Group ‘D’ employees; and

(iv) Judicial Officers.

No Government employee shall be retained in service

after attaining the age of superannuation, except in public

interest and in exceptional circumstances, without the approval

of Council of Ministers.

Note 1.— One eyed employee shall not be treated as blind or

differently-abled person for the purpose of this rule.

Note 2.─ When a Government employee is due to retire on

superannuation from service an office order shall be issued on

7th of the month in which he is going to be retired and a copy

of every such order shall be forwarded immediately to the

Principal Accountant General, Haryana. There is no need to

re-instate a Government employee who is under suspension at

that time.

Note 3.— A Government employee who becomes disabled

while in service shall bring to the notice of his Head of

Department minimum three months before attaining the age of

58 years. He shall be got examined from a Medical Board of

the Post Graduate Institute of Medical and Science, Rohtak to

beheaded by its Director. On receipt of medical report from the

Board, the appointing authority or the Head of Department,

whichever is higher, shall take a final decision to grant or not

to grant the extension in service to such physically disabled

employee.’

4.Rule 143 prescribes the age of superannuation of the employees

of the State of Haryana and also specifies when such an employee shall retire.

For all classes of employees, the age of superannuation is 58 years, excluding

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 24 of 46

those who fall in the excepted category i.e. (i) Differently abled employees

having a minimum degree of disability of 70% or above or blindness; (ii)

Blind employees; (iii) Group-D employees and (iv) Judicial Officers. We are

primarily concerned with the excepted category of differently abled

employees having a minimum degree of disability of 70% or above and

blindness. It is the degree of disability as 70% or above and blindness for

restricting the benefit of extended age of superannuation at 60 years which is

the bone of contention, herein.

5.The petitioners are the employees of the State of Haryana and

have been assessed with disability of 40% or above by the District Medical

Board and are issued a certificate of disability under the signature of the Chief

Medical Officer of the District concerned under the Act of 1995 and the Act

of 2016. Their degree of disability is, however, assessed below 70% and

consequently, they are to retire at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years.

These employees contend that the State cannot restrict the benefit of extended

age of superannuation only to a person suffering from a degree of disability of

70% or above and blindness. It is argued that persons suffering with

benchmark disability of 40% or above, constitute a class in themselves for the

purposes of protection in employment by way of affirmative action under the

provisions contained in the Act of 1995 as well as the Act of 2016 and

therefore, it is not open for the State to create further divide within this

homogenous group of persons suffering with disabilities under the Act of

1995 as well as the Act of 2016, by creating a class in itself of employees

suffering with 70% disability or above and blindness.

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 25 of 46

6.In order to appreciate the controversy raised herein, we directed

the Chief Secretary of the Government of Haryana to clarify, by filing an

affidavit, the rationale of the extended age of superannuation to employees

suffering from disability of 70% or above and blindness. The Chief Secretary

in his affidavit has clarified that the benefit of extended age of superannuation

was accorded firstly, vide Government instruction dated 02.11.1988, to all

blind employees who entered into service after attaining the age of 30 years.

Subsequently, this benefit was extended to all blind employees vide

instruction dated 18.03.1996. The affidavit further clarifies that no

justification has been given in the said instructions and even the original files,

whereby these instructions were issued, are not traceable being old records.

Subsequently, the Physically Disabled Employees’ Association represented to

the Government of Haryana for the age of retirement to be enhanced to 60

years for all differently abled employees having disability of 70% or above, so

as to bring uniformity among all categories of differently abled employees.

The Government of Haryana, vide instructions dated 31.01.2006, accordingly

extended the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years for differently

abled employees having disability of 70% or above.

7.The affidavit of the Chief Secretary further states that the file

relating to the issuance of instructions dated 31.01.2006 is available and its

perusal reveals that in order to bring uniformity among all disabled employees

from Group-A to Group-D, it was decided to extend the benefit of age of

retirement from 58 years to 60 years, subject to recognition of disability of

70% or above.

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 26 of 46

8.Record reveals that on 16.02.1996 a circular was issued by the

Punjab Government, increasing the age of retirement from 58 years to 60

years for Government employees who were visually impaired/blind. This

circular came to be challenged by one Bhupinder Singh, an orthopedically

disabled employee, by filing CWP-7233-2010 before this Court, contending

that the measures taken to protect disabled persons cannot be limited to

persons suffering with only one class of disability i.e. visual

impairment/blindness and that the protection ought to be extended to other

classes of disability recognised in law.

9.Learned Single Judge of this Court allowed CWP-7233-2010 vide

judgment dated 25.05.2011 and held that there is no distinction between a

person suffering from one kind of disability or the other. The Court took note

of Section 2(i) of the Act of 1995 which defined disability. Reference was

also made to Section 2(t) of the Act of 1995 which defined person with

disability to mean a person suffering from not less than 40% of any disability,

as certified by a Medical Authority. As per the learned Single Judge all

categories of differently abled persons fell in a similar disadvantageous

position. Accordingly, the Court opined that the circular confining the benefit

of enhancement of retirement age only to blind persons tends to discriminate

between different categories of persons suffering from disability and

consequently, directed the State of Punjab to extend the benefit of enhanced

age of superannuation to other categories of disabled persons.

10.State of Punjab challenged the decision of the learned Single

Bench vide LPA-1719-2011, along with other connected Appeals. These

appeals came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 27 of 46

25.09.2012. The Division Bench observed that with the enactment of the Act

of 1995 persons suffering from all kinds of recognized disability are to be

treated equally and at par. The Act of 1995 was held to place responsibility on

the society to make adjustments for differently abled persons so that they are

able to overcome various practical, psychological and social hurdles created

by their disability. Law placed differently abled persons at par with other

citizens of India in respect of education, vocational training & employment so

as to establish a coherent and comprehensive framework for the promotion of

just and fair policies. The Court, accordingly, held as under:-

“The aforesaid discussion would amply demonstrate that it is not

only the statutory but Constitutional right of persons suffering from

disabilities to get special treatment recognized by law. In this process,

persons suffering from one disability cannot be treated differently from

other kind of disability. All disabled persons falling within the

definition of Section 2(i) of the Disability Act form one class. There

cannot be sub-classification within this same class.”

The appeal of the State was consequently dismissed.

11.Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, the State of

Punjab filed Civil Appeal No. 8855 of 2014 which too was dismissed on

16.09.2014 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court observing as under:-

“In order to dissuade this Court from accepting the reasoning

expressed in the impugned orders, learned counsel for the appellants

invited our attention to a decision rendered by this Court in Union of

India vs. Devendra Kumar Pant and others, (2009) 14 SCC 546. The

question that arose for consideration in the aforesaid judgment pertains

to promotion. This is not the case here. The benefit granted by the High

Court pertains to the respective employment in which a disabled

employee has been engaged. In that view of the matter, the judgment

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 28 of 46

relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable

to the facts and circumstances of this case. Our above view is based on

the fact, that the issue of discrimination adjudicated upon by the High

Cout, relates to employees who were already engaged in government

service. There is no dispute about their ability to discharge their duties,

against the posts on which they were employed. The benefit if extended

to the categories of disabilities for which reservation in employment

has been contemplated under the Disabilities Act would not cause any

administrative inconvenience to the appellants.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeals are

disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.”

12.Accordingly, the benefit of enhanced age was extended to

persons suffering from other disability recognized under the Act of 1995, in

addition to employees suffering from visual impairment/blindness in the State

of Punjab.

13.When the Rules of 2016 came to be formulated by the State of

Haryana, under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the

benefit of extended age of superannuation has been restricted to the differently

abled employees suffering from disability of 70% and above and blindness

only, in the background noted above.

14.It transpires that similar issue arose in the adjoining State of

Himachal Pradesh wherein the benefit of extended age of superannuation was

limited to employees who were blind vide Office Memorandum dated

29.03.2013. The issue was brought before the Central Administrative Tribunal

(for short, ‘CAT’), which allowed the Original Application of the applicant

and extended the benefit of higher age of superannuation to other differently

abled employees in addition to visually impaired/blind employees.

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 29 of 46

15.The State of Himachal Pradesh, during the pendency of the

dispute, withdrew the Office Memorandum dated 29.03.2013, vide which

increased the age of 60 years was provided for visually impaired employees

only vide Office Memorandum dated 04.11.2019. The Office Memorandum

dated 04.11.2019 was also put to challenge and the controversy ultimately

came to be resolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kashmiri Lal Sharma

Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., 2025 SCC Online SC

1355 wherein following two questions fell for determination before the

Court:-

“I) Whether the benefit of extension of retirement age

for the physically disabled category could be confined to persons

with visual impairment as provided in the OM dated 29.03.2013

or it should be available to persons suffering from all such

disabilities as are specified in the 1995 Act and the 2016 Act.

II) Whether such extension could be withdrawn as

was done by the OM dated 04.11.2019? if yes, then what would

be its effect on the claim of the appellant?

16.The Court relying upon the judgment in Bhupinder Singh

(supra) has held as under:-

14. In our considered view, the decision in Devendra Kumar

Pant (supra) was rightly distinguished in Bhupinder Singh (supra) as

there appeared no intelligible basis to confer benefit of age extension to

one disabled category and deny it to the other when both are specified

in the 1995 Act as well as the 2016 Act. In this view of the matter, if

benefit of extension of retirement age is available to visually impaired

category, the same ought to be available to other categories of

disabilities specified in the 1995 Act as reiterated in the 2016 Act.

. 15. Besides above, the decision in Bhupinder Singh (supra) has

been followed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in several of its

decisions (i.e., CWP No.7860 of 2021: The Principal Secretary Health

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 30 of 46

and Family Welfare & Anr. V. Surender Kumar Vashisth, decided on

20.12.2022; and CWP No. 1577/ 2018 -H: State of H.P. & others v.

Krishan Chand, decided on November 05, 2018, against which SLP ©

D. No. 18076 of 2019 was dismissed by this Court on 13.09.2019).

16. For the reasons recorded above, it is held that the benefit of

extension of retirement age as provided under the OM dated

29.03.2013 could not have been confined to visually impaired category.

Rather, it should be available to persons suffering from all such

benchmark disabilities as are specified in the 1995 Act and the 2016

Act.”

17.So far as the second question posed for consideration in Kashmiri

Lal Sharma (supra) is concerned, the Court has held as under:-

“21. However, as we have held, while deciding issue I,

that persons suffering from other specified disabilities could

not have been denied the benefit of the OM dated 29.03.2013,

we are of the view that till the date the said OM was

operative, the appellant was entitled to its benefit as,

admittedly, he fell in the category of employee suffering from

such disabilities as are specified in the 1995 Act and the 2016

Act.

22. Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed. 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.”

18.In this bunch, petitioners rely upon the decision in the case of

Bhupinder Singh (supra) rendered in respect of State of Punjab as also the

judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Kashmiri Lal (supra) rendered in

respect of similar issue arising from the State of Himachal Pradesh to contend

that persons with disability under the Act of 1995 and benchmark disability

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 31 of 46

under the Act of 2016 constitute a homogeneous group and any carving of

distinction therein, is impermissible. Argument of the petitioners is that the

State of Haryana cannot limit the benefit of extended age of superannuation

only to persons with disability of 70% or above and blindness. It is also the

petitioners’ case that once certificate of disability is issued in terms of the Act

of 1995 as well as the Act of 2016, by the competent Medical Officer at the

District level, it would not be open for the State to require the retiring

employee to produce a fresh certificate of disability from PGIMS, Rohtak

certifying degree of disability as 70% or above and blindness.

19.Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand,

argues that the State, as an employer, has the right to regulate the service

conditions of its employees by making appropriate Rules under the proviso to

Article 309 of the Constitution of India and consequently, the condition that

extended age of superannuation would be limited to persons with degree of

disability above 70%, is well within its power. The respondents also argue

that the initial circular to extend the age of superannuation to 60 years for

visually impaired employees since has been extended to other disabled

persons, as such the State retains the right to restrict the extent of disability for

which extended age of superannuation is available. It is also the case of the

respondents that fixing of degree of disability at 70% is based upon the

request made by the Association of Disabled Employees themselves and

consequently, the petitioners are estopped from questioning such decision of

the State.

20.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

materials on record.

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 32 of 46

21.The short question that arises for consideration in this bunch of

the Writ Petitions is as to whether the State of Haryana can restrict the benefit

of extended age of superannuation to persons suffering with disability of 70%

or above and blindness, notwithstanding the provisions contained in the Acts

of 1995 and 2016 specifying the degree of disability for grant of protection at

40% or above? Additionally, the issue raised is as to whether the State can

require obtaining of disability certificate from the Medical Board of PGIMS,

Rohtak evidencing degree of disability to be 70% or above and blindness,

alone, for extending the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years?

22.As already noticed, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of

Rule 143 of the Rules of 2016, to the extent that the degree of disability for

extended age of superannuation is fixed at 70% or above and blindness, in

place of 40% or above under the Act of 1995 and the Act of 2016. Note 3

appended to Rule 143 which requires the employee to be examined by the

Medical Board of the PGIMS, Rohtak for determination of disability is also

impugned insofar as the disability certificate issued by the competent

authority under the Act of 1995 and the Act of 2016 is not relied upon.

23.In order to ameliorate the condition of differently abled persons

the Act of 1995 was enacted to give effect to the proclamation on the full

participation and equality of the people with disabilities in the Asian and

Pacific Region adopted at the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and

Pacific held at Beijing, China from 1

st

to 5

th

December, 1992. India being a

signatory to the proclamation was required to enact necessary law for the

purpose. Section 2(i) of the Act of 1995 defined ‘disability’ to include

disability of seven distinct kinds i.e. (i) Blindness; (ii) Low Vision; (iii)

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 33 of 46

Leprosy-cured; (iv) Hearing impairment; (v) Locomotor Disability; (vi)

Mental Retardation and (vii) Mental Illness while Section 2(t) of the Act of

1995 defined ‘persons with disability’ to mean a person suffering from not

less than forty percent of any disability as certified by a medical authority.

Section 32 of the Act of 1995 provided for the identification of posts which

can be reserved for persons with disabilities. Section 33 of the Act then

provided for reservation of posts by the appropriate Government of not less

than 3%, consisting of 1% each for the persons suffering from blindness or

low vision; hearing impairment; locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the

post identified for each disability.

24.Act of 1995 is substituted by the Act of 2016 which defines

“Person with benchmark disability” under Section 2(r) to mean as under:-

2(r) “person with benchmark disability”

means a person with

not less than forty per cent of a specified disability where

specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms

and includes a person with disability where specified disability

has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the

certifying authority;

25.The Act of 2016 also defined ‘person with disability ’under

Section 2(s) and person with disability having high support needs under

Section 2(t). Provisions in the Act of 2016 promotes the cause of not just the

persons suffering with benchmark disability defined in Section 2(r) but are

comprehensive to include other concerns defined under Section 2(s) and 2(t)

of the Act.

26.Chapter VI of the Act of 2016 contains special provisions for

persons with benchmark disabilities. Section 31 provides for free education to

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 34 of 46

children with benchmark disability while Section 32 provides for reservation

in admission in higher educational institutions. Section 33 provides for

identification of posts for reservation in employment. Section 34 then

provides for reservation in the matter of employment for persons suffering

from benchmark disability. Section 35 to 37 contains provisions to incentivize

employers in private sector; creation of special employment exchange and

special schemes and developmental programmes.

27.The provisions contained in the Act of 2016 provides for

affirmative action to secure protection in the matter of employment for

differently abled persons suffering with benchmark disability. No provision in

the Act of 2016 exists permitting creation of any separate class of differently

abled persons with higher degree of disability of 70% or above or blindness

alone in the matter of grant of benefit in employment.

28.When this bunch of cases were heard on 15.09.2025 and the

statutory scheme was highlighted on behalf of the petitioners to assail the

impugned provisions contained in the Rules of 2016, we proceeded to pass

following orders:-

“Before we proceed further in the matter, the Court

would like to understand as to what is the rationale or

justification for fixing a higher age of superannuation for

those who suffer from benchmark disability of 70% or more

and are blind.

The provisions of the Disabilities Act of 2016 prima

facie aims to only protect disabled persons, and the policy of

the State for grant of additional benefits to them in the form of

higher age of superannuation needs to be clarified.

In these circumstances, we call upon the Chief

Secretary of State of Haryana to file his affidavit clarifying

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 35 of 46

the position in the light of observations made herein within

two weeks.

Since, in this bunch of petitions, interim orders have

already been passed in favour of most of the employees, who

are suffering from benchmark disability of 40% and above to

continue till the age of 60 years, we provide that all the

employees covered by this bunch would be allowed to

continue till the age of 60 years where their benchmark

disability is 40% or above. In cases, where the disability of

40% or above is disputed by the State, relying upon reports of

the Board constituted either by PGI Rohtak or PGI

Chandigarh, such persons shall not be entitled to any

continuation in service beyond the age of 58 years, but their

rights would remain subject to outcome of these petitions.

Adjourned to 30.09.2025.”

29.In response to the above observation the Chief Secretary, State of

Haryana has filed his personal affidavit stating as under:-

“3. That with regard to the rationale or justification for

fixing a higher age of superannuation for those who suffer

from benchmark disability of 70% or more it is most

respectfully submitted that to begin with, the benefit of

enhanced retirement age was accorded vide instructions

dated 02.11.1988 to only those blind employees who enters

into service after attaining the age of 30 years. Further, this

benefit was extended to all blind employees vide instructions

dated18.03.1996. However, no justification has been given in

the said instructions and even the original files whereby these

instructions were issued are not traceable being old record.

Subsequently, Physically Disabled Employees Association

represented to the Government of Haryana, requesting that

their retirement age be enhanced to 60 years for all physically

disabled employees having disability of 70% or above, so as

to bring uniformity among all categories of disabled

employees. The Government of Haryana vide instructions

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 36 of 46

dated 31.01.2006 extended the age of superannuation of all

Physically Handicapped Employees from 58 years to 60 years

having disability of 70% or above. It is pertinent to mention

here that the file relating to issuance of the instructions dated

31.01.2006 is available in record and a perusal of

notings/note sheets reveal that in order to bring uniformity

among all disabled employees from Group-A to Group-D, it

was decided to extend the benefit of age of retirement from 58

years to 60 years subject to the condition of disability of 70%

or above. The said benefit of raising the age of

superannuation for blind employees and Group-IV Employees

was also incorporated in Rule 3.26(a) of the Punjab Civil

Services Rules, Volume-1, Part-I which provides that Judicial

Officers, Group-IV and blind employees of Haryana

Government shall retire at the age of 60 years.

4. That it is most respectfully submitted that in exercise of

the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the

Constitution of India, the Governor of Haryana has granted

approval to the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016

in place of Punjab Civil Service Rules (ibid). After following

the due procedure of law, the aforementioned rules have been

issued by the Finance Department of the Government of

Haryana.

5. That a number of Civil Writ Petitions have been filed

before this Hon'ble High Court challenging Rule 143(1)(i)

and Note 3 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules,

2016. In order to avoid such litigation, Finance Department

being the competent authority has submitted the proposal to

reconsider the matter. For the kind perusal of this Hon'ble

Court, the relevant portion of the said rules is reproduced

below:-

"Except as otherwise provided in these rules, every

Government employee shall retire from service on

afternoon of the last day of the month in which he

attains the age of retirement prescribed for him or for

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 37 of 46

the post held by him in substantive or officiating

capacity, as the case may be. However, a Government

employee whose date of birth is the first of a month

shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last

day of the preceding month on attaining the prescribed

age. The age of retirement on superannuation is fifty

eight years for all groups of employees except the

following for whom the same is sixty years:-

(i) Disabled employees having minimum degreeof

disability of 70% and above.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Note 3.- A Government employee who becomes disabled

while in service shall bring to the notice of his Head of

Department minimum three months before attaining the age

of 58 years. He shall be got examined from a Medical Board

of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical and Science, Rohtak

to be headed by its Director. On receipt of medical report

from the Board, the appointing authority or the Head of

Department, whichever is higher, shall take a final decision to

grant or not to grant the extension in service to such

physically disabled employee."

6. That the aforesaid proposal of the Finance Department

has been approved in principle by the State Government and

the matter is being placed before the Council of Ministers for

their consideration.

7. That it is respectfully submitted that in one of the CWP

No. 14988 of 2025, this Hon'ble Court vide interim order

dated 23.05.2025 permitted the employees of the Haryana

State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. who are physically

disabled to continue on their posts beyond the age of 58 years

till the age of 60 years. The said interim order was challenged

by the Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. before the

Apex Court by filing SLP(C) No. 24294 of 2025 and the Apex

Court vide order dated 14.10.2025 set-aside the said order by

observing that if the concerned employees ultimately succeed

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 38 of 46

in their writ petition they would be entitled to all

consequential benefits for the period in dispute, even without

having actually worked during that time. On the contrary, if

the writ petition fails there cannot be any turning back of the

clock for the period during which respondent No. 1 would

have continued in service without legal sanction. A true Copy

of the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court is annexed herewith as Annexure-R/1. Therefore, it is

humbly prayed that all the interim orders in connected

petitions wherein this Hon'ble Court has allowed the

petitioners to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years

till the age of 60 years may kindly be vacated.

In view of the above mentioned facts and

circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the present status

report by way of affidavit may kindly be accepted and place

on record in compliance of order dated 15.09.2025 in the

interest of justice.

”

30.It transpires that the genesis of the policy for extending the age of

superannuation was the instruction dated 02.11.1988, which limited the

benefit of extended age of superannuation to the employees with no

vision/blindness who entered in service after attaining the age of 30 years.

This was further extended to all employees with no vision/blindness vide

instruction dated 18.03.1996. Such benefit of enhanced age of superannuation

for blind employees and Group-IV employees was also incorporated in Rule

3.26(a) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-I, Part-I, which provides

that Judicial Officers, Group-IV and blind employees of Haryana Government

shall retire at the age of 60 years. The affidavit of Chief Secretary further

states that in exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the

Constitution of India, the Rules of 2016 have been framed substituting Punjab

Civil Service Rules (ibid).

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 39 of 46

31.So far as the policy in the State of Haryana for extending the age of

superannuation for persons suffering with blindness or differently abled employees

having minimum degree of disability of 70% and above and blindness is concerned,

the only explanation offered by the State of Haryana is the existence of previous

instructions issued on 02.11.1988 and 18.03.1996. These instructions were initially

limited to persons suffering from blindness who entered in service after the age of

30 years and later to all employees suffering from blindness. On this aspect, similar

controversy raised in respect of State of Punjab stands authoritatively settled in the

case of Bhupinder Singh (supra). The ratio laid down in Bhupinder Singh’s case

(supra) is fully applicable in respect of the State of Haryana, as well. Accordingly,

disabled employees suffering from blindness cannot be treated as a separate and

distinct class from other disabled employees having disability of 40% or

above/benchmark disability will also be entitled to the benefit of extended age of

superannuation.

32.What appears from the affidavit of the Chief Secretary is that the

rationale for extending the age of superannuation for blind employees, vide

instructions dated 02.11.1988 and 18.03.1996 does not exist on record. The

only basis for the State policy in restricting the benefit of enhanced age of

superannuation to differently abled employees having minimum degree of

disability of 70% and above is the alleged representation received from the

Physically Disabled Employees’ Association requesting that their retirement

age be enhanced to 60 years for all physically disabled employees having

disability of 70% or above so as to bring uniformity among all categories of

differently abled employees.

33.Apart from the representation of the Physically Disabled

Employees’ Association making a request for enhancement of retirement age

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 40 of 46

for persons suffering with 70% disability or above, no other material or

justification has been placed on record on behalf of the State Government

justifying extended age of superannuation in terms of Rule 143 of the Rules of

2016. The rationale for restricting the benefit only for the employees having

disability of 70% or above or blindness for extending the age of

superannuation to 60 years while disability/benchmark disability under the

Act of 1995 and 2016 remains at 40% and above is not explained. It is,

therefore, apparent that the decision of the State of Haryana to restrict the

benefit of enhanced age of retirement only to the persons above 70%

disability is not based on any intelligible differentia, nor any object is sought

to be achieved. The impugned decision is apparently based only on the ground

that such prayer was made in the representation of the Association of

differently abled employees.

34.We fail to understand as to how the State Government could

come out with a Policy restricting benefit of extended age of superannuation

only for employees suffering from disability of 70% or above or of blindness

when the applicable law in the form of Act of 1995 and the Act of 2016

specifies disability of 40% or above/benchmark disability for grant of

protection to differently abled persons. Mere making of representation by the

Association of differently abled employees cannot furnish a valid basis for the

creation of a distinct class of differently abled employees in the matter of

extending the age of superannuation.

35.No conscious decision appears to have been taken by the State of

Haryana while restricting the benefit of extended age of superannuation to the

persons with disability of 70% or above or of blindness. No material or basis

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 41 of 46

is otherwise shown for extending the age of superannuation for persons

suffering with benchmark disability.

36.Employees suffering with benchmark disability/disability above

40% have been held to constitute a homogeneous class in themselves for the

purposes of affirmative action by the State for protection in employment by

virtue of the provisions contained in the Act of 1995 and the Act of 2016. This

position in law has been affirmed by this Court in Bhupinder Singh’s case

(supra) which has received ringing endorsement from the Supreme Court in

Civil Appeal No.8855 of 2014, State of Punjab and Others v. Bhupinder

Singh and in Kashmiri Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity

Board and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1355.

37.Moreover, in Deaf Employees Welfare Association and Another

Vs. Union of India and Others; (2014) 3 SCC 173, the Supreme Court has

emphasized that once disability of 40% has been certified by the medical

Doctor of the kind specified in Section 2(i) of the Act of 1995 then such

person is entitled to the benefits of all the schemes and benefits provided by

the Government and there can be no further discrimination among the persons

with varied or different types of disabilities. The observation of the Court

contained in paragraphs No.23 and 26 are reproduced hereinafter:-

23.The Disabilities Act, as already indicated, states that the

“persons with disabilities” means persons suffering from not

less than 40% of “any disability”, as certified by the medical

doctor. When a person is having any of the disabilities

mentioned in Section 2(i) and is so certified by the Medical

Doctor, he is entitled to the benefits of all the Schemes and

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 42 of 46

benefits provided by the Government and there can be no

further discrimination among the persons with varied or

different types of disabilities. In the matter of affirmative

action, in our view, there cannot be further discrimination

between a person with disability of ‘blindness’ and a person

with disability of ‘hearing impairment’. Such discrimination

has not been envisaged under the Disabilities Act. All the

categories of persons mentioned in Section 2(i) have their own

disadvantages, peculiar to themselves. A ‘visually impaired

person’ cannot be equated with ‘hearing impaired person’ and

vice versa. Both have different type and mode of disability. For

a blind person, visibility may be poor, sometimes zero per cent,

but would be able to hear and understand what is going on in

and around him. At the same time, a deaf and dumb person could

see, but would not be able to talk and hear what is going on

around him. The nature of disability of those categories of

persons may not be same, but the disabilities they suffer are to

be addressed with care and compassion.

*****

26The Disabilities Act deals with a well defined class i.e.

“persons with disabilities” mentioned in Section 2(i). The nature

of disability may differ from person to person included in Section

2(i), but all such persons have been categorized as a group of

“persons with disabilities” under Section 2(i) read with Section

2(t) of the Act. In our view, the differentia sought to be

canvassed by the Ministry of Finance has no rational relation to

the object sought to be achieved by the Disabilities Act, which

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 43 of 46

envisages to give equal opportunities, protection and rights to

the “persons with disabilities”. Equality of law and equal

protection of law be afforded to all the “persons with

disabilities” while participating in Governmental functions.

Transport allowance is given to Government employees since

many of the Government employees may not be residing in and

around their places of work. Sometimes, they have to commute

long distances to and fro. There has been an unprecedented

increase in the commutation time between the residence and

place of work which effects the work environment in offices

adversely as the employee spend much of their energy in

commuting and, in the case of persons with disabilities, the

situation is more grave.”

38.There is unanimity in the judicial opinion expressed by the

Supreme Court as well as the opinion expressed by this Court and the High

Court of Himachal Pradesh that persons with disability of 40% or above

persons with benchmark disability constitute a class in themselves and further

creation of a class, in such homogenous group, would be arbitrary unless the

classification is based on any intelligible differentia and has a valid object to

achieve.

39.Persons suffering with 40% and above disability, under the Act of

1995 and the Act of 2016 constitute a homogenous group and any further

classification therein, limiting the affirmative action in the form of extended

age of superannuation would be violative of the provisions of the Acts of 1995

and 2016. Since such classification is otherwise not found to be based on any

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 44 of 46

intelligible differentia nor any valid object is sought to be achieved by such

classification, justifying limitation of benefit of extended age of

superannuation for the employees suffering with disability of 70% or above or

blindness, the classification is held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14

of the Constitution of India.

40.We, therefore, find substance in the petitioners’ grievance that

Rule 143 of the Rules of 2016 insofar as it limits the benefit of extended age

of superannuation to persons suffering with disability of 70% or more or

blindness contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the

provisions of the Act of 2016 and consequently is liable to be declared ultra

vires.

41.In order to save Rule 143 from the vice of hostile discrimination,

for the reasons recorded above, we read down Rule 143 of the Rules of 2016

and hold that all differently abled employees of the State of Haryana, who are

issued the certificate of disability under the Act of 1995 and the Act of 2016

would be entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 60

years.

42.Note 3 appended to Rule 143 was intended to subserve the object

of Rule 143 of the Rules of 2016 insofar as the benefit of extended age of

superannuation was restricted only to differently abled employees suffering

from disability of 70% or above or to employees who have no vision/blind.

Once we hold that such classification/restriction is ultra vires, no purpose

would be served in allowing Note 3 to continue in the Rule Book.

Accordingly, Note 3 appended to the Rule 143 of the Rules of 2016 is

quashed. The determination of disability since is regulated by the Act of 1995

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 45 of 46

as well as Act of 2016 therefore, the determination of degree of disability as

per the applicable provisions in law would regulate the extension in the age of

superannuation for the differently abled employees having the required

disability as per law.

43.Before parting, we may observe that the only conscious decision

of State to extend the age of superannuation for differently abled persons is

contained in the instruction dated 02.11.1988. By this instruction, the age of

superannuation was enhanced to 60 years for visually impaired/blind

employees who entered in service after attaining the age of 30 years. The

rationale apparently was to secure minimum tenure for employees suffering

with blindness. The next decision in this regard is contained in instruction

dated 18.03.1996 which is in the nature of modification of previous decision

dated 02.11.1988, altering the clause insofar as it limited the benefit to those

blind employees who entered in service after 30 years of age. The Act of 1995

was not in existence and rights for disabled employees had not crystallized

when the earliest decision dated 02.11.1988 was taken. We have taken note of

the scheme of the Act of 1995 and the Act of 2016 which protects persons

from discrimination and provides for affirmative action in matters of

employment on account of their benchmark disability/disability above 40%.

Our attention has not been invited to any provision in the applicable statute

which provides for affirmative action in the nature of extended tenure of

service for persons suffering from such disability. Our attention has also not

been invited to any conscious decision taken by the State of Haryana to

provide for extended age of superannuation for persons suffering with

disability under the Act of 1995 and the Act of 2016. It is, otherwise, well-

CWP-2340-2023 (O&M) and connected cases.

Page 46 of 46

settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kashmiri Lal Sharma (supra) that

State has the power to fix the age of superannuation of its employee and

consequently, the withdrawal of previous circular, extending such extended

age of superannuation for employees suffering with blindness alone, has been

affirmed. In such circumstances, while deciding these matter(s), we deem it

appropriate to clarify that it shall be open for the State of Haryana to take a

conscious decision whether or not to allow the extended age of

superannuation for persons suffering with disability, in light of the provisions

contained in the Act of 1995 as also the Act of 2016.

44.With these observations, all the cases are disposed of.

45.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

46.Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected

cases. However, no order is passed as to costs.

[ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA]

JUDGE

[ROHIT KAPOOR]

JUDGE

NOVEMBER 06, 2025

Ess Kay/Rahul Joshi/Rajesh

Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No

Whether Reportable : Yes / No