Author: Anjir Solanki, Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya
TO THE POINT
The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on a clarification regarding the choice of retirement age, establishing two key principles. Firstly, the Court adjudged that employees do not possess a fundamental right to determine their retirement age; the authority lies solely with the state or the employer, i.e., an executive action. Secondly, the Court interpreted the principle of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution to mean that any policy without an intelligible differentia that differentiates between retirement ages based on the nature of an employee’s disability is unconstitutional. According to the Rights of Persons with disabilities act 2016, there has to be uniform treatment for all ‘benchmark disabilities’, meaning if the benefit of extension of retirement age is granted to one category, it should extend to other categories as well.
ABSTRACT
This landmark judgement arose from an appeal by an employee who was treated differently. The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Manoj Misra and K.V. Viswanathan agreed that retirement age is a matter of policy, not a fundamental right, but they must not be discriminatory, extending retirement age for visually impaired employees but not to other benchmark disabilities, such as locomotor impairment, lacked an “intelligible differentia.” which was a balancing act, promoting both individuality and check and balances ensuring administrative efficiency and fairness.
LEGAL JARGONS
This article uses the following legal terminology: locomotor impairment is a condition that leads to difficulty in the movement of limbs. Intelligible differentia- it is a legal test under Article 14 that any classification must be reasonable and have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved, which was lacking in the policy.
Benchmark disabilities- According to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, a person with at least 40% disability is part of a homogenous class. Office memorandum (OM)- An official document issued by the government or an authority to communicate policy decisions, etc. The 2013 OM extended the retirement age for visually impaired employees, which was the subject of the dispute, and superannuation refers to the act of retiring from service.
THE PROOF
Why not a fundamental right?
In part III of the Indian constitution, fundamental rights are guaranteed, but the Court, exercising judicial restraint, clarified that it was a matter of policy which was to be dealt by the executive. Employees do not have the right to choose and alter their age when they superannuate from their service, because to appreciate employment contracts and to maintain efficiency and uniformity. However, the policy must align with principles of equality.
What’s the 2013 OM and partial relief
The 2013 OM by the state of Himachal Pradesh was a benefit given to the visually impaired employees to retire at the age of 60. However, other disabilities were discriminated to retirement at 58. This was later withdrawn by a 2019 OM under the General Clauses Act, the ages reverted to 58 for all in this circumstance. Here, the doctrine of legitimate expectation was applied, which means the public authorities should act according to the expectations created either expressly or by conduct, and they can’t suddenly act arbitrarily or take away promises to ensure procedural fairness. Here, the appellant had a reasonable expectation of continued service based on the existing policy, and he was entitled to the same benefits as the visually impaired employees until the 2013 OM’s withdrawal on November 4, 2019. However, post 2019, the retirement age was 58 for all employees, so the appellant could not claim an extension beyond this period.
CASE LAWS
Kashmiri Lal Sharma Vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd (2025)- The Court held that extending the retirement age to 60 years only for visually impaired employees, while giving retirement at 58 for those with locomotor disabilities (like the appellant), was unconstitutional and violated Article 14. While upholding the state’s authority to set retirement ages and the withdrawal of the 2013 OM in 2019, the appellant was entitled to the extended retirement benefit until the policy’s withdrawal date, entitling him to missed wages and consequential benefits for that period.
Bhupinder Singh v State of Punjab & Ors (2011)- With similar facts, the court held that the discriminatory policy of the retirement age to 60 years for blind government employees, while keeping it at 58 for other categories of disabled employees, including the petitioner who had lost his forearm was irrational and violated the principle of equality in the Disability Act 1995, directing the State to extend the benefit of enhanced retirement age to all categories of disabled government employees.
K. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1985)- The court agreed that the Andhra Pradesh government was right to reduce the retirement age for workers from 58 to 55. The Court dismissed the petitions challenging this reduction, stating that fixing the age of superannuation is a matter of policy and the judiciary should only interfere if the decision is unreasonable or irrational. The Court found that the government’s rationale of providing greater employment opportunities to the youth was a valid public interest consideration; it did not violate Articles 14, 16, 21, or 300A of the Indian Constitution.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court in Kashmiri Lal Sharma elucidated a balanced approach by exercising judicial restraint that it does not provide individual autonomy; the state can still create policies for efficiency. It upholds the right of the state to govern its workforce while ensuring that no individual or group is left behind due to unjustified actions. But the policies must follow constitutional principles. Not just retirement age but also other benefits such as promotion, training, and opportunities, etc. The judgment reiterated the principle of “intelligible differentia’ and “legitimate expectation”.
FAQS
Does an employee have a fundamental right to decide retirement age?
No, an employee does not have a fundamental right to decide retirement age, but retirement policies can be challenged if they are discriminatory.
Does this involve employees in the private sector?
The present case involved a state employer; however, statutes like the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, generally apply to both public and private entities.
How does this judgment affect employees with disabilities?
Suppose an employer or state grants an extension of retirement age (or any other service benefit) to one category of benchmark disability. In that case, it must extend the same benefit uniformly to all other benchmark disabilities unless there’s a reasonable classification.
SOURCES
