Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lal Mani Sharma vs State Of Punjab & Another on 6 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032741
CWP-25944-2018 2024:PHHC:032741 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
238 CWP-25944-2018
Date of decision: 06.03.2024
Lal Mani Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
***
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J
1. The prayer in the present Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 24.07.2018, Annexure P-8 as well as the impugned letter dated 02.11.2015, Annexure P-5, whereby the claim of the petitioner for the grant of two years extension in service has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioner, who is 40% physically handicapped person (locomotor), was promoted to the post of Excise & Taxation Inspector vide order dated 19.04.2000 and continued as such till he was retired. He superannuated on 31.01.2015 on attaining the age of 59 years. As per Instructions dated 19.11.2014 (Annexure P-3) issued on the basis of judgment passed in Government of Punjab and others vs. Bhupinder Singh and others, SLP No.10610 of 2013, in terms of Provisions of Section 33 of the Person with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the petitioner was entitled to grant an extension of 2 more years. However, the claim of the petitioner was declined without assigning any reason. The pick and chose policy was adopted in the case of petitioner. He on 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2024 23:55:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032741 CWP-25944-2018 2024:PHHC:032741 2 instructions from the petitioner, restricts his claim for considering the said period of two years only for the purpose of retiral benefits does not seek the salary for the said period.
3. It would be worthwhile to make a reference to the judgment rendered in the case of CWP-3974-2012 titled as Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 18.09.2015, wherein the petitioner, a handicapped employee on account of having suffered an injury on his left leg in an accident, had sought direction to the respondents to extend the date of superannuation, it was observed and held thus:
"Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the order dated 18.03.2015 (Annexure P-13) whereby, Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Education and School, in view of the case of Kailash Chander Sharma, has granted all financial benefits to a similarly situated employee by noticing that the Department of Finance had recommended that all financial benefits have to be given. The relevant portion reads thus:-
"3. That after dismissal of SLP filed by Govt. of Punjab in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the personnel department issued the directions through letter no. 17/20/2010-2PP2/132 dated 18.11.2014. According to those directions the age of superannuation of all the categories of handicapped persons is enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. This petitioner had been retired on 30.04.2012 after attaining the age of 58 years. Therefore the advice was sought from Department of Finance that after the completing the age of 58 years whether all the financial benefits are to be given to the petitioner upto the age of 60 years or only notional benefits are to be given. The Department of Finance informed through letter no. 10/12/2015-3 XX (written in Punjabi) 2/432712/1 dated 10.03.2015 that in view of the order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP no. 10610 of 2013 the petitioner may be given all the financial benefits from 01.05.2012 to 30.04.2014 on attaining the age of 60 years instead of 58 years.
4. In view of aforesaid facts came on record myself C. Roul, Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Punjab being a competent officer reached on the conclusion that as per the instructions vide dated 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2024 23:55:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032741 CWP-25944-2018 2024:PHHC:032741 3 19.11.2014 of personnel department the age of the superannuation of Sh. Kailash Chander Sharma District Science Supervisor, Amritsar is fixed 60 years instead of 58 years. He would be entitled to all the financial benefits since 01.05.2012 to 30.04.2014 after attaining the age of 58 years meaning thereby that till he attains the age of 60 years he is entitled to all the financial benefits."
Counsel for the petitioner has further brought to the notice of this Court that in similarly situated cases, the Principal Secretary has also recalled his earlier order dated 15.04.2013 and granted all financial benefits to one Jarnail Singh and Kulwant Kaur, who retired on 31.03.2012 and 31.08.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years vide order dated 13.03.2015. The issue was discussed threadbare and the said benefit was given. Similarly, one Surinder Kaur was granted the similar benefit by the Director, Public Instructions (S.E.) on 13.07.2015.
Thus, it is apparent that the State is taking two different stands and denying the relief in one case and while granting the benefit in another, which is not permissible and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Resultantly, the present writ petition is allowed and order dated 21.07.2015 (Annexure R-1) is quashed and the respondents are directed to grant the petitioner all financial benefits from 01.05.2012 to 30.04.2014. Since the petitioner has already been granted pension, the necessary adjustments will be made for the amounts which the petitioner has already received during this period. The State shall ensure that in similarly situated cases, benefits are not denied to such handicapped employees as the issue stands conclusively decided."
4. Learned State counsel is unable to rebut the factual position in this matter and cite any contrary law.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in Harbhajan Singh (supra) and as per statement of learned counsel for the petitioner, restricting the claim, the respondents are 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2024 23:55:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032741 CWP-25944-2018 2024:PHHC:032741 4 directed to recalculate his pensionary benefits taking into account the period of extension and release the same within a period three months.
( AMAN CHAUDHARY )
06.03.2024 JUDGE
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032741
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2024 23:55:08 :::