IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.02.2025 Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Arun Gupta, DAG, Punjab.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the respondents to extend the date of retirement of the petitioner to the age of 60 years instead of 58 years.

2. Learned counsel prays for disposing of the case in terms of CWP- 26797-2023 titled as Jagtar Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 21.05.2024, as it covers the case of the petitioners on all fours, which learned State counsel despite best efforts has been unable to controvert regards the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary law and the same read thus:-

“Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, who is suffering from Post Polio Residual Paralysis Right Lower Limb and has a disability of 50%, as assessed by the Civil Surgeon, Faridkot vide certificate dated 25.11.1986 Annexure P-1, was appointed to the post of Clerk in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Ferozepur and joined on 21.12.1987, wherein he worked for two years and thereafter transferred through proper channel on 02.09.1998 in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Moga on the same post. He was consequently promoted as Senior Assistant and was set to retire on 30.11.2023. He was, in view of the Instructions dated 02.12.2022, released handicap allowance on 02.06.2023. As per Rule 3.27 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume I Part I and Instructions dated 19.02.2021, appended as Annexure P-6 issued in terms of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1995”) he was entitled for extension in service upto the age of 60 years. The office in order to consider his claim, even got his handicapped certificate verified as per procedure from the Civil Surgeon, Moga vide letter dated 09.03.2023 Annexure P-3. He also submitted a representation on 24.05.2023 for with the aforesaid request. The Deputy Commissioner had, vide letter dated 15.11.2023 Annexure P-5 also sought necessary approval with regard for grant of extension to him. However, no response was received, he thus, filed the present writ petition on 28.11.2023, prior to his retirement, wherein this Court vide order dated 30.11.2023 made it clear that if the petitioner succeeds, he will be treated to continue in service and would also be entitled to salary for the said period as well. In case of grant of extension, the petitioner will continue in service till 30.11.2025. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment in Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, the relevant portion whereof reads thus:

“The entire scheme underlining the Disability Act is to provide equal opportunities to persons suffering from various kinds of disabilities with those who do not suffer with any such disabilities. The Act also protects the rights of disabled persons and provides opportunities for full participation in all matters to enable the disabled persons to come to the level of normal human beings and not to suffer on account of any physical deformity or disability. Section 2 (i) has defined 7 kinds of disabilities. Chapter VI for employment and also reservation in services. Section 33 provides reservation in services not less than 3% for three categories of disabled persons i.e. (i) blindness or low vision ii) hearing impairment (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. Persons suffering from all kinds of disabilities have been treated at par.

From various provisions of the Act noticed herein above, it is abundantly clear that all categories of disabled persons have been treated alive and have been subjected to similar treatmen