CMP-T/142/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 3002 HP

CMP(T) No.142 of 2021 in Ex. Petition No.8 of 2021

.

30.6.2021 Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner/applicant.

Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Kunal Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents.

Through video-conferencing

Advocate Mr.

                    r           to
                            Sudhir

                          General,
                                       Bhatnagar,

                                        while
                                                        learned

                                                  placing          on
                                                                      Additional

                                                                            record

            communication      dated    5.5.2021,       issued       under       the

signatures of Director Higher Education, Himachal

Pradesh, contends that judgment sought to be executed

stands implemented in its letter and spirit and as such,

present application has rendered infructuous.

However, having carefully perused the aforesaid

communication, which is taken on record, this Court

finds that the case of the petitioner has been rejected on

the ground that no such benefit has been given to

physical handicapped persons by the Department of

Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh and instructions

dated 29.3.2013 has been withdrawn by the Government

vide subsequent notification dated 4.11.2019. This Court

finds from the record that vide notification dated

29.3.2013 Government had ordered for enhancement of

retirement age from 58 to 60 years in respect of Blind

Government Employees. Thereafter, person namely,

Krishan Chand, who was hearing impaired able person,

.

approached erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal by

way of OA No.1004 of 2015, claiming therein that all the

disabled persons constitutes one homogeneous class

and as such, his retirement age also deserves to be

enhanced from 58 to 60 years. Learned Tribunal below

petitioner.

r to vide judgment dated 10.1.2018 accepted the claim of the

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

aforesaid judgment rendered by the Tribunal below in

Krishan Chand's case, respondent-State filed CWP

No.1577 of 2018-H, which was dismissed vide judgment

dated 5.11.2018. Record further reveals that aforesaid

judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court was

laid challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court, but SLP

having been filed by the respondent-State was also

dismissed. Since judgment rendered by the Tribunal

below in Krishan Chand case, wherein it has been held

that all the disabled persons constitutes one

homogeneous class has attained finality, the petitioner is

entitled to similar benefit as was extended to the

petitioner's in Krishan Chand case. No, doubt,

instructions dated 29.3.2013, whereby retirement age of

Blind Government Employee was ordered to be enhanced

from 58 years to 60 years stands withdrawn vide

subsequent notification dated 4.11.2019 but since

.

judgment in petitioner's case was passed on 16th March,

2018, the withdrawal of notification dated 29.3.2013 in

the year, 2019 has no relevance in the petitioner case.

Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned

Additional Advocate General prays for and is granted two

r to weeks' time to have fresh instructions.

List on 14.7.2021.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 30, 2021 (shankar)