IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

****

LPA-231-2017 (O&M)

Reserved on 17.04.2023

Date of Decision:03.05.2023

Kamal Dev Kalia

. . . . Appellant

Vs.

State of Punjab and others

. . . . Respondents

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

****

Present:

Mr.Shashi Kumar Rattan, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.Abhay Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab.

****

M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

1.

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).

VIVEK PAHWA

2023.05.05 10:09

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

LPA-231-2017

-2-

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 Vs.

State of Punjab and others¹ (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 Vs. State of Punjab and others²,

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

1 In CWP-7233-2010 dt.25.05.2011

2 In CWP-3974-2012 dt.18.09.2015

VIVEK PAHWA

2023.05.05 10:09

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

LPA-231-2017

-3-

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.