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 years.

3. Before he retired on 31.05.2013, he claimed to be entitled to extension of two years as per the 1995 Act upto the age of 60 years and had given representations dt.03.12.2012 (P6), 01.01.2013 (P7) and 04.03.2013 (P8).

4. The respondents did not bother to send any reply or take a decision on any of his representations.

CWP-24930-2015

5. He then filed CWP-24930-2015 before this Court and sought a direction to the respondents to dispose of his representations, while also seeking pension and other pensionary benefits as per certain instructions issued by the Department on 19.11.2014 on the basis of a decision of this Court in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others In CWP-7233-2010 dt.25.05.2011 (which judgment had been upheld in LPA-1719- 2011 on 25.09.2012 and also by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8855 of 2014 on 16.09.2014). He had given a legal notice dt.21.08.2015 (P11) prior to filing of the CWP and sought pension from the respondents placing reliance on the above decisions.

6. The said CWP-24930-2015 was decided on 30.11.2015. After referring to a decision of this Court in Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab and others In CWP-3974-2012 dt.18.09.2015, where this Court had held that no discrimination should be shown by the State to employees suffering from disabilities and it cannot deny relief in one case and grant benefit to another as it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a direction was given to respondent No.3 therein to take a decision on the legal notice dt.21.08.2015 within three months keeping in view the observations made in both the cases of Bhupinder Singh (1 Supra) as well as Harbhajan Singh (2 Supra).

7. The respondent No.3 then passed an order on 23.05.2016.

The respondent No.3 took note of the fact that the appellant was a handicapped person and that State Government had issued instructions on 19.11.2014 fixing retirement age of handicapped persons other than falling in Group D services at 60 years, and the fact that the appellant had already retired from service on 31.05.2013 on attaining the age of 58 years.

So he directed that the appellant would be deemed to have been retired on attaining the age of 60 years for the purpose of grant of increment, pay fixation and retiral benefits, but he would not be entitled to arrears of pay.He however directed that the retiral benefits of the appellant should also be revised by the competent authority.

CWP-25280-2016

8. The appellant then filed CWP-25280-2016 before this Court for quashing of the said order in so far as respondent No.3 had denied payment of arrears of pay on enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60 years and sought a direction to the respondents to grant and release arrears of pay with interest @ 18% per annum contending that the