The court established that the retirement age extension benefit applies to all specified disabilities, not just visually impaired individuals, affirming equality under the law.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. These two appeals arise from a writ petition (i.e., CWP No.146 of 2020) filed by the appellant for declaring the retirement order dated 30.09.2018, seeking to retire the appellant at the age of 58, as null and void in view of the Office Memorandum (for short OM) dated 29.03.2013 and also for declaring the OM dated 04.11.2019, withdrawing the OM dated 29.03.2013, as null and void, or, in the alternative, to declare the same as not applicable to the appellant. By the impugned order dated 28.07.2021 the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed and, later, by the second impugned order dated 22.06.2022 the review was dismissed.

Facts

3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these appeals are as under:

a) The appellant being a person with permanent locomotor disability to the extent of 60 per cent was appointed as an Electrician with the 1st respondent on 13.03.1985. On the date of his appointment, he would have attained the age of superannuation on completing 58 years which, as per his date of birth (i.e., 19.09.1960), would have been 18.09.2018. However, by virtue of the extant service conditions, he would have continued in service till the last date of the month in which he attained the age of superannuation i.e., till 30.09.2018.

b) On 29.03.2013, an OM was issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh extending the age of superannuation of physically handicapped (visually impaired) category of employees from 58 years to 60 years.

c) Claiming that the benefit of the said OM should also be extended to persons suffering from other specified physical disabilities, the appellant before his retirement represented to the authorities to grant him the benefit of age extension.

d) The 1st respondent, however, did not accept the request for age extension and instead served a notice of retirement on 22.09.2018, informing the appellant that he would retire on 30.09.2018.

e) In the meantime, prior to the date of attaining the age of superannuation, the appellant had filed an Original Application No. (M) 508/2018 before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for enhancement of his retirement age from 58 years to 60 years in view of the OM dated 29.03.2013.

f) While the aforesaid Original Application was pending, by OM dated 04.11.2019, the State withdrew the OM dated 29.03.2013 with immediate effect. Faced with that situation, the Original Application, which was transferred to the High Court upon abolition of the Tribunal, was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to file a fresh petition challenging, inter alia, the OM dated 04.11.2019.

g) Pursuant to the liberty so provided to the appellant, a fresh petition (i.e., CWP 146 of 2020) was filed before the High Court, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Submissions on behalf of appellant

5. The submission of Shri Subhro Sanyal, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that denial of benefit of the OM dated 29.03.2013 to persons suffering from other specified disabilities, by confining it to only the visually impaired category, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as benefit of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short 1995 Act) and the subsequent enactment i.e., The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short 2016 Act) extend to all specified disabilities which include locomotor disability, therefore persons suffering from those specified disabilities constitute a homogeneous class, albeit posts may be reserved for a specified category of disability.

6. It has been contended that a similar issue had arisen before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.7233 of 2010 [Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others]. The High Court took the view that confining the benefit of enhancement of retirement age only to visually impaired category of employees woul