VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

1. Union of India by the present writ petition impugns the order dated 31.12.2014 passed by the Deputy Chief Commissioner acting under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protecting of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the Deputy Chief Commissioner has passed a judgment like a court of law and issued directions for appointment of the respondent/Sh. Rajender Singh Para 19 of the impugned order dated 31.12.2014 reads as under:-

“19. From the advertisement and notification, it is observed that the Engineering Services were indicated as identified for persons with disabilities in both legs among other categories/sub categories of disabilities. This explains why the complainant applied for the said examination and went though the rigours of the selection process. Had it been clearly mentioned in the advertisement/Notification that none of the Engineering Services is identified for his category of disability, the complainant would not have applied for the said examination and would have concentrated his energies in securing jobs elsewhere. After being recommended for appointment to one of the Engineering Services by UPSC under the category of Locomotor disability, it does not appear to be reasonable to declare the complainant unfit solely on the ground of his disability at such a late stage when the entire process had almost been completed and to deprive him of a well earned job for no fault of his. It is understood that case of Shri Rajiv Ranjan which is an identical case, is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble CAT and in the Hon’ble High Court. As soon as a decision is pronounced by the concerned Tribunal/Court, the respondent is advised to decide the case of the complainant in terms of the decision in that case.”

2. In spite of repeated opportunities being given to the respondent, the respondent has not filed any counter affidavit. Counsel for the respondent states that respondent is not contacting his counsels in spite of repeated endeavours.

3. The issue in the present case is fully covered in favour of the petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and Others Vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin (2010) 4 SCC 368. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinesh Kumar Bhasin (supra) are contained in paras 12 to 19, and which paras read as under:-

“12. Under the Rules, an officer of the Bank, shall retire on completion of thirty years of service. The respondent was accordingly retired on completion of thirty years. He was not denied any retiral benefits. He was not entitled, as of right, to continue beyond thirty years of service. In fact, he did not want to continue in service, as his grievance was that he ought to have been permitted to retire under the exit policy scheme. The grievance of the respondent had apparently nothing to do with his being a person with a disability.

13. Prima facie, neither Section 47 nor any other provision of the Disabilities Act was attracted. But, the Chief Commissioner chose to issue a show cause notice on the complaint and also issued an ex parte direction not to give effect to the order of retirement. He overlooked and ignored the fact that the retirement from service was on completion of the prescribed period of service as per the service regulations, which was clearly mentioned in the letter of retirement dated 17-11-2006; and that when an employee was retired in accordance with the Regulations, no interim order can be issued to continue him in service beyond the age of retirement.

14. The Chief Commissioner also overlooked and ignored the fact that as an authority functioning under the Disabilities Act, he has no power or jurisdiction to issue a direction to the employer not to retire an employee. In fact, under the Scheme of the Disabilities Act, the Chief Commissioner (or the Commissioner) has no power to grant any interim direction.

15. The function

Click Here to Read the rest of this document