Cwp No. 22047 of 2026 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

Judgment

#1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to decide the legal notice dated

11.01.2026 (Annexure P-6) submitted by the petitioner, in view of the

judgment dated 06.11.2025, passed by this Court in CWP-2340-2023 and connected cases, titled as Jora Singh vs State of Haryana and others.

#2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Waterman (Group-D) in the Government Secondary School, Jehtana, District Gurgaon (now District Nuh), on 02.08.1993. He was subsequently working as a Clerk and retired from service on 30.04.2025 upon attaining the age of 58 years. He further submits that the petitioner is a person with a benchmark CWP-22047-2026 2 disability of 50%, as certified by the competent medical authority under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Prior to the amendment dated 03.02.2026, Rule 143 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter 'HCSR') provided for the enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years in respect of employees with a disability of 70% and above as well as blind employees. The said provision was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in Jora Singh’s case (supra), wherein it was held that all persons having benchmark disabilities constitute one homogeneous class and the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation could not be confined only to blind employees or employees with disability of 70% and above. Consequently, the benefit of extension in service up to the age of 60 years was held to be available to all employees possessing benchmark disabilities in terms of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner had acquired a vested and accrued right to continue in service up to the age of 60 years in view of the judgment rendered in Jora Singh’s case (supra). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached respondent No.1 for redressal of his grievance and also served a legal notice dated 08.12.2025, to which a reply was received stating that the claim regarding extension of service falls within the domain of the Secondary Education Department. The petitioner, thereafter, served another legal notice dated 11.01.2026 (Annexure P-6) upon the District CWP-22047-2026 3 Secondary Education Officer, Nuh, but despite the same, no decision has been taken by the respondents on the petitioner's claim.

#4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the validity and effect of the Notification dated 03.02.2026 has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajnish Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP-5224-2026), wherein it has been categorically held that no employee can claim continuation in service beyond the age of 58 years after the implementation of the amendment dated 03.02.2026 and the amended Rule 143 of HCSR would apply even to current employees. He, thus, argues that the present petition deserves dismissal in view of the binding precedent rendered by the Division Bench of this Court.

#5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

#6. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the amendment dated 03.02.2026 cannot be applied to him as he had already acquired a right to continue in service up to the age of 60 years on the strength of the judgment rendered in Jora Singh’s case (supra). However, a similar contention stands considered by the Division Bench in Rajnish Kumar’s case (supra), wherein the effect of the amendment dated 03.02.2026 and its applicability to existing employees was directly in issue. Consequently, the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra. CWP-22047-2026 4

#7. After examining the scheme of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the effect of the amendment dated

03.02.2026, the Division Bench of this Court in Rajnish Kumar’s case (supra) has categorically held that no vested or indefeasible right accrues in favour of an employee with regard to the age of superannuation and the State, in exercise of its powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, is competent to alter the conditions of service, including the age of retirement. It has further been held that upon the amendment coming into force on 03.02.2026, no existing employee could claim continuation in service till the age of 60 years. The relevant paragraphs from the judgment in Rajnish Kumar’s case (supra), are reproduced hereunder:-

#35. As regards issue no.3, the right of the employer to alter the service conditions, including the retirement age by way of reduction in the age of superannuation, is not a matter of dispute before us and it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishnu Narain Misra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1965 SC 1567, that such exercise of power would not be hit by Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The argument of the petitioners that such reduction would operate prospectively and would not be applicable to employees who have already crossed the age of 58 years, is based upon a wrong assumption that the same would result in disturbing accrued rights which already stand crystallized. The correct legal position is that the conditions of service, including the age of superannuation, do not confer an CWP-22047-2026 5 indefeasible vested right on a government servant. The State retains competence to alter them for valid reasons. The prospective nature only protects against reopening of past service records, past pay fixation etc., accrued service benefits such as salary and pension etc., which cannot be withdrawn. In the case of Kashmiri Lal (supra), it was inter alia observed as under:- “18…….Otherwise also, an employee has no fundamental right as regards the age at which he would retire. Moreover, termination of service of an employee on account of reaching the age of superannuation in accordance with law or rules regulating the conditions of service does not amount to his removal from service within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.3 In K. Nagaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1985) 1 SCC 523, a three-Judge Bench of this Court upheld reduction of the age of retirement from 58 years to 55 years. While doing so, this Court observed that “it is not possible to lay down an inflexible rule that 58 years is a reasonable age for retirement and 55 is not. If the policy adopted for the time being by the Government or the Legislature is shown to violate recognized norms of employment planning, it would be possible to say that the policy is irrational since, in that event, it would not bear reasonable nexus with the object which it seeks to achieve. But such is not the case here.”

#36. The appellant in the said case was granted the benefit of continuance of service and full wages with all consequential benefits that may impact his pension uptil

04.11.2019, which was the date on which the OM granting the benefit of extended age of superannuation till 60 years, was withdrawn.

#37. In the instant case, we may take note that by virtue of interim orders passed by this Court, several employees are continuing to work, even after coming into force of the impugned notification, despite having attained the age of CWP-22047-2026 6 58 years. Under such circumstances, we hold that all such employees who have crossed the age of 58 years, shall be entitled to protection of service benefits, like salary, pension, etc. till the date of their working. However, on account of the amendment in Rule 143 coming into force on 03.02.2026, no existing employee can claim to continue till the age of 60 years.

#8. Consequently, this Court finds that the issue raised by the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Once a categorical finding has been recorded by the Division Bench that the amended position is applicable even to existing employees and no employee can claim continuation in service beyond the age of 58 years after 03.02.2026, then, judicial discipline and propriety require this Court to uniformly apply the said view. It would, therefore, not be appropriate for this Court to re-examine the very same issue. Accordingly, the reliance placed by the petitioner upon Jora Singh’s case (supra) would not advance his case in view of the subsequent authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench in Rajnish Kumar’s case (supra).

#10. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. However, in terms of the principles laid down in paragraph 37 of the judgment rendered in Rajnish Kumar’s case (supra), if the petitioner has continued in service beyond the age of 58 years by virtue of any interim orders passed by this Court, he shall be entitled to protection of service benefits, including salary, pensionary and other CWP-22047-2026 7 consequential benefits, for the period he has actually worked. The competent authority shall examine the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law.

#11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

20.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No