IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.01.2025 GURNAM SINGH ... Petitioner VERSUS BHAKHRA BIAS MANAGEMENT BOARD AND ORS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

****

Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Vidhushi Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate for the respondents.

****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

Seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to grant all financial benefits of two years’ service in lieu of extension granted to the petitioner from the age of 58 years to 60 years under the Physically Handicapped Employee Category, the petitioner has approached this court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed with the Bhakhra Bias Management Board, Patiala on 12.05.1982 to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC). While the petitioner was in service, he met with an accident and suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 40% as per the certificate dated 19.03.2002 issued in his favour in this regard. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the year 2012 and he attained the age of 58 years on 31.03.2014. The petitioner was given extension in service from the age of 58 years to 60 years, on a year to year basis. The petitioner was given his first extension in service vide office letter No.19 dated 08.01.2014 for a period of one year from 31.03.2014 to 31.03.2015 and was given second extension for another one year vide office letter No.126 dated 10.02.2015 from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 (upto the age of 60 years). During the period of extension, the Government issued a circular dated 19.11.2014, in compliance of the Judgment dated 25.05.2011 passed by this Court in the matter of “Bhupinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and others” bearing No.CWP-7233 of 2010 that had attained finality upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide the said circular, the retirement age of all the physically handicapped employees in general was increased to 60 years and an amendment was also later carried out in Rule 3.27 of the Punjab Civil Services Rule Vol. 1(1). He contends that pursuant to the amendment/circular, all the employees who were/are physically handicapped, irrespective of whether they could do physical work or not, have been given extension in service up to the age of 60 years alongwith all financial benefits including the arrears, annual grade increments, regular pay scales/salaries and all pensionary benefits. Even though the petition was given extension in service from the age of 58 years to 60 years but for the period of said extended service, he was not granted annual grade increment and was being paid only the regular pay. The petitioner finally retired on 01.04.2016, without getting any benefit for the extended service period for two years above. The pensionary benefits of the petitioner were calculated on the basis of salary that was admissible to the petitioner at the time of attaining an age of 58 years. The petitioner claims that benefits of two annual grade increments alongwith revision of retiral benefits and all other benefits, however, the claim of the petitioner was not responded to. The petitioner hence submitted a representation dated 19.03.2018 to the respondents in light of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court, however, no decision was taken thereupon, thus compelling him to approach this Court for seeking the said relief.

It is further argued that originally the benefit of the increased age of superannuation was granted only to the State Government employees suffering from blindness and not to the other handicapped employees. The writ petition bearing No.CWP-7233 of 2010 titled as ‘Bhupinder Singh Versus State of Punjab was hence filed before this Court, wherein the above action of the respondents was set aside being arbitrary and it was held that a parity treatment needs to be extended to all disabled persons under the Persons With