Facts

• Kashmiri Lal Sharma, working as an employee (likely an electrician or similar technical staff) with HPSEB, diagnosed with 60% locomotor disability.

• A 2013 Office Memorandum (OM) by the Himachal Pradesh government extended retirement age from 58 to 60, but explicitly only for “visually impaired” employees.

• Mr. Sharma argued that being disabled (not visually impaired), he too should be entitled to the same age extension under the Persons with Disabilities Act and principles of equality under Article 14.

• Sharma reached the age of 58 and retired, as age extension wasn't formally applied to him.

• He moved the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging his retirement’s legality and requesting the extended age benefit. The High Court initially allowed it, but the State issued a follow-up OM in November 2019 withdrawing the benefit, leading the Court to dismiss Sharma’s petition, as the extension no longer applied.

• Upon appeal, the Supreme Court allowed Sharma to have continued in service from when he turned 58 until 4 November 2019, when the November OM withdrew the extension. He was granted back salary and corresponding pension adjustments for this period.

Issues

• Whether a physically disabled (locomotor-impaired) employee is entitled to the benefit of enhanced retirement age (from 58 to 60 years) under a government policy that originally extended the benefit only to visually impaired employees?

Analysis

In the case of, Kashmiri Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr., the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment affirming the principles of equality and non-discrimination in the context of disability rights. The petitioner, a government employee with 60% locomotor disability, challenged his retirement at the age of 58 on the ground that a 2013 Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the Himachal Pradesh government had extended the retirement age to 60 for visually impaired employees. The core issue was whether such benefit could be restricted only to one category of disability. The Court held that this classification was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, emphasizing that all benchmark disabilities recognized under the law deserve equal treatment. The Court observed that the benefit, although originally granted to visually impaired employees, should also be applicable to others with similar physical impairments under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. However, once the OM was withdrawn on 4 November 2019, the petitioner could not claim the extension beyond that date. Thus, the Court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service till the withdrawal date and directed that he be paid full salary and consequential benefits for that period. This judgment reinforces the idea that executive policies must conform to constitutional values and statutory protections provided to persons with disabilities.

Judgement

The Supreme Court held that the benefit of extended retirement age granted under the Himachal Pradesh government's Office Memorandum dated 29 March 2013 could not be confined only to visually impaired employees but must also be extended to other categories of benchmark disabilities, including locomotor disability. The Court found the exclusion of other disabled persons from the benefit to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. It ruled that the petitioner, Kashmiri Lal Sharma, who had a 60% locomotor disability, was entitled to the extension of service up to 4 November 2019, the date on which the said policy was withdrawn by the State Government.

Accordingly, the Court directed that Sharma be treated as having continued in service until that date and ordered the authorities to pay him full salary and service-related benefits for the period between his initial retirement date (1 October 2018) and 4 November 2019. His pension and other post-retirement benefits were also to be recalculated on that basis. The Court clarified that while the State had the power to withdraw such benefits prospectively, it could not deny the petitioner his entitlement during the period when the policy was in force.

Therefore, observations made from judgement:

• • Benefits meant for one category (visually impaired) must extend to all benchmark disabilities.
• • Once a benefit is granted by the State, it cannot be denied without justification while it remains active.
• • As selective application of retirement benefits violates constitutional equality. ‘Retirement age is a policy matter, not a fundamental right’, but such policies must be applied fairly and uniformly.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kashmiri Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. reinforces the constitutional principle of equality and non-discrimination in the treatment of persons with disabilities. It clarified that once the State extends a benefit to a category of disabled persons, it cannot arbitrarily exclude others with similar impairments without valid justification. The judgment affirms that executive policies must align with both constitutional mandates and statutory protections under disability law.

Therefore, by granting service continuation and financial benefits to the petitioner, the Court set a strong precedent for inclusive and uniform application of disability rights in public employment.