Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Increase In Retirement Age Of Differently-Abled Employees Of State Govt

The Allahabad High Court earlier this month dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking enhancement of the age of retirement from 60 to 62 years in respect of the employees of the State Government who are differently abled.

The petitioner (Ramkali Samajik Utthan Evan Jan Kalyan Samiti) argued that since the differently-abled government employees working in the State of Haryana and the State of Punjab have been given the benefit of age of superannuation of 62 years, whereas in the State of U.P., the age of superannuation of differently-abled employees is 60 years, hence such employees in the State of U.P. have been discriminated against.

It was further argued that the scheme of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 clearly mandates that the differently-abled persons cannot be subjected to any kind of discrimination including in the matter of public employment.

Therefore, it was pleaded that the High Court ought to issue a direction to the State of U.P. for enhancing the age of superannuation of its differentaly-abled employees from 60 to 62 years.

Court's observations

The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Rajnish Kumar, at the outset, stressed that the Act 2016 was framed to make a law prohibiting all kinds of discrimination of differentlyabled persons in the society and also for ensuring their effective participation and inclusion in the society as also for creating an environment where there will be respect for the difference such differently-abled persons bear and also to create equality of opportunity etc.

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that it is not a case where the petitioner is pointing out any discrimination of the differently-abled government servants in the State of U.P. in any respect vis-a-vis their counterparts who are not differently-abled.

Rather, the Court further observed, the petitioner has pleaded discrimination of the differently-abled government employees in the matter of their age of retirement in the State of U.P. vis-a-vis their counterparts in the State of Haryana and State of Punjab.

In view of this, the Court referred to Article 14 of the Constitution of India to underline that the same cannot be read to mean that all laws have to be uniformly applicable to all people. The Court said that Article 14 permits classification, however, such classification has to have some reasonable basis and which means that reasonable classification is not barred.

"The age of superannuation as determined by the State of Haryana and State of Punjab for its differently-abled employees cannot be applied so far as the differently-abled employees of the State of U.P. are concerned as a matter of right either flowing from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or from the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Differently-abled employees in the State of U.P. forming well defined class distinct from another well defined class of differently-abled employees serving the State of Punjab and State of Haryana," the Court further added as it dismissed the plea.

The Court also emphasized that the plea of differential treatment to the differently-abled employees in the State of U.P., in the facts of the present case, so far as their age of superannuation is concerned, is not tenable.

Case Title - Smt. Ramkali Samajik Utthan Evan Jan Kalyan Samiti Thru. Secy. Adv. Manoj Kumar Yadav v. Union Of India Thru. The Ministry Of Social Justice And Empowerment New Delhi And 2 Others

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 390

Click Here To Read/Download Order