What did the Haryana high court rule regarding retirement age for disabled employees?

The Haryana high court ruled that all differently abled employees in the state, regardless of their degree of disability, are now entitled to a retirement age of 60 years.

How did the court's decision impact the previous retirement rule in Haryana?

The court struck down the previous rule that limited the extended retirement age benefit to only those employees with a minimum disability of 70% or above, or those who were blind. This was found to be discriminatory and in violation of the Constitution and disability laws.

What is the significance of the Haryana high court's ruling for disabled workers in the state?

The court's decision ensures that all disabled employees in Haryana now have equal rights and access to the same retirement benefits as their able-bodied counterparts, promoting greater inclusivity and non-discrimination.

Home / Education / Haryana Grants Equal Retirement Rights to All Disabled Employees

Haryana Grants Equal Retirement Rights to All Disabled Employees

17 Nov

•

Summary

Haryana high court strikes down rule limiting extended retirement to 70%+ disabled
All disabled employees in Haryana now eligible for 60-year retirement age
Court finds no rational basis for excluding some disabled workers from benefit

Haryana Grants Equal Retirement Rights to All Disabled Employees

On November 17, 2025, the Haryana high court delivered a significant ruling that extends the retirement age for all differently abled employees in the state to 60 years. Previously, under Rule 143 of the Haryana Civil Service (General) Rules, only those with a minimum disability of 70% or above, or those who were blind, were eligible for the extended retirement age.

The high court bench, comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, struck down this rule, finding it to be in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution as well as the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The court determined that there was no reasonable justification for the state government to limit the benefit of extended retirement to a select group of disabled employees.