Back
M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, SUKHVINDER KAUR
Kamal Dev Kalia – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's background and representations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. previous court decisions affecting retirement age. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. appeal against denial of arrears. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. arguments regarding delay and entitlement. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court’s detailed consideration of equal treatment. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. binding judgments and respondent’s obligations. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. doctrine against taking advantage of one's own wrong. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. final ruling and directives to grant wages. (Para 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dt.07.12.2016 in CWP-25280-2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. The appellant has a shortened Right Femur (Leg). He was appointed in Physically handicapped category as he was having "locomotor disability" and was covered by Section 2 (i) (v) of the Disability (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 [for short 'the 1995 Act']. He had retired as Senior Assistant from the Education Department of the State of Punjab on 31.05.2013 on attaining the age of 58
The court established that the retirement age extension benefit applies to all specified disabilities, not just visually impaired individuals, affirming equality under the law.
The statutory obligation to protect employees acquiring disability during service and the discriminatory nature of extending age benefits only to specific disability categories.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of delay and laches in seeking relief after retirement, emphasizing that such claims should be made within a reasonable time and that....
The enhancement of retirement age is a policy decision of the government, not a right of employees, and cannot be mandated by the court.
The enhancement of retirement age is a policy decision of the government, and employees cannot claim a right to continue in service pending such a decision.
Claims for additional increments post-retirement are barred by delay and laches, emphasizing the need for timely action by employees.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
