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
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032741
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
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032741
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
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032741
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
