Case Name: Kashmiri Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2025 (from SLP (C) Nos. 1091–1092 of 2023)
Date of Judgment: 3 April 2025
Judges: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Kashmiri Lal Sharma was working as an electrician with HP State Electricity Board since 1985. He had 60% locomotor disability. As per rules, he was supposed to retire at age 58, which would be 30.09.2018. But in 2013, the Himachal Govt issued an Office Memorandum (OM) saying visually impaired people can retire at 60 instead of 58.
Sharma said this should apply to all disabled people, not just blind people. He asked for the same benefit, but the Board said no and gave him retirement notice.
He went to tribunal, then to High Court. But before anything could happen, in 2019 the govt cancelled that OM. High Court also rejected his petition. So he came to Supreme Court.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
- Can govt give age extension benefit only to blind employees and deny it to other disabled persons?
- Once the OM is withdrawn, does Sharma still get benefit?
- Was it okay to retire him at 58 even when he was asking for age extension?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 14 of Constitution – Right to Equality
- 1995 Act – Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act
- 2016 Act – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
- Section 21 of General Clauses Act – Power to cancel or change government orders
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS (Kashmiri Lal Sharma)
- It’s unfair to give age extension only to blind people and not others with disability.
- 1995 and 2016 Acts treat all benchmark disabilities equally.
- Supreme Court in Bhupinder Singh case already said that benefits cannot be restricted to just one category.
- Sharma had asked for benefit before he retired, so he should be considered under the old OM.
- Once benefit is given, withdrawal should not affect people who already qualify.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS (Electricity Board)
- At the time Sharma retired, the OM only applied to visually impaired people.
- He was never officially given the benefit, so nothing was taken away.
- Government has full power to withdraw the OM.
- Without official order, Sharma cannot claim right to extended retirement.
ANALYSIS
Supreme Court said:
- All benchmark disabled people are a single group under the law.
- It is wrong to give benefit to only blind people and ignore others like Sharma.
- So, Sharma should have been given the extension up to 60 years.
- But,Govt can withdraw an OM anytime unless there is a rule/law.
- The OM was cancelled on 04.11.2019.
- Since Sharma was not officially granted benefit before that date, he can only claim till the OM existed.
- So, Court allowed him service benefit till 04.11.2019.
JUDGMENT
- High Court order is cancelled.
- Sharma should be treated as if he worked till 04.11.2019.
- He will get salary and other service benefits from 01.10.2018 to 04.11.2019.
- After that, he is retired.
CONCLUSION
- Disability benefit cannot be given only to some disabled persons and denied to others.
- Sharma was eligible and should have got extension till 2019.
- But after OM was cancelled, he cannot claim service beyond that date.
- So, Supreme Court gave partial win, salary and benefits for 13 months extra, but no full extension.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY PRIYANKA DESHIKAN.
