127+128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) CWP-22548-2026 Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Krishan Kumar and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 2) CWP-22559-2026 Daya Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. With the consent of parties, this common order shall dispose of the aforementioned civil writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-22548-2026. 2. The present civil writ petition(s) has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned relieving orders dated 13.07.2026 (Annexures P-8 & P-9) issued by the office of respondents No.6 & 7 without complying with the order of extension already granted to the petitioners and for staying the operation of the impugned relieving orders (Annexures P-8 & P-9). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that NEHA 2026.07.24 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22548-2026 CWP-22559-2026 -2- petitioner No.1, namely, Krishan Kumar, has 70% locomotor disability, as discernible from Annexure P-1 (in CWP-22548-2026), whereas petitioner No.2, namely, Sumer Singh, has 90% disability, as discernible from Annexure P-4 (in CWP-22548-2026). The petitioner, namely, Daya Ram, also has 90% disability, as discernible from Annexures P-1 and P-2 (in CWP-22559-2026). It is further submitted that the date of superannuation of petitioner No.1 was in September, 2025, and he was granted extension vide order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P- 3). Petitioner No.2 was granted extension vide order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereas the petitioner, namely, Daya Ram, was granted extension vide order dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) (in CWP-22559-2026). 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 CWP-2340-2023 and connected cases, titled as Jora Singh vs State of Haryana and others, 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. He further contends that the petitioner(s) had acquired a vested and accrued right to continue in service up to the age of 60 years in view NEHA 2026.07.24 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22548-2026 CWP-22559-2026 -3- of the judgment rendered in Jora Singh’s case (supra). 3. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitions deserve dismissal in view of the binding precedent rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 5. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the amendment dated 03.02.2026 cannot be applied to them as they 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. 6. After examining the scheme of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the effect of the amendment dated 03.02.2026, the NEHA 2026.07.24 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22548-2026 CWP-22559-2026 -4- 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 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 NEHA 2026.07.24 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22548-2026 CWP-22559-2026 -5- 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 58 years. Under such NEHA 2026.07.24 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22548-2026 CWP-22559-2026 -6- 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. 7. Consequently, this Court finds that the issue raised by the petitioners 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 petitioners upon  Jora Singh’s case (supra) would not advance their case in view of the subsequent authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench in Rajnish Kumar’s case (supra). 8. In view of the above, the above mentioned both petitions are hereby dismissed. 9. However, in terms of the principles laid down in paragraph 37 of the judgment rendered in Rajnish Kumar’s case (supra), if the petitioners have continued in service beyond the age of 58 years by virtue of any interim orders passed by this Court, they shall be entitled to protection of service benefits, including salary, pensionary and other consequential benefits, for the period NEHA 2026.07.24 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22548-2026 CWP-22559-2026 -7- they have actually worked. The competent authority shall examine the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law. 10. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 23.07.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No NEHA 2026.07.24 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh