RAWEL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard through video conferencing.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although the petitioner is 75% physically challenged but the respondents are arbitrarily not allowing him to continue till the age of 60 in violation of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for the 'the Act') as well as instructions dated 19.11.2014 (Annexure P-2). There is inadvertent error in the subject of the instructions which should read regarding increase in age from 58 years to 60 years.

(3.) Learned State counsel has filed reply wherein it is stated that the increase in age of retirement from 58 to 60 years for disabled employees is not unconditional but subject to the condition that they should be mentally and physically fit to discharge the duties of the post. She has also filed a copy of the medical report of the Civil Surgeon, Patiala wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner was examined by the Board of Doctors and it was found that the petitioner is disabled to the tune of 75% as he is suffering from severe ataxia as assessed by the department of neurology. It was also stated that he is unable to walk independently and cannot carry out activities of daily living like bathing, dressing, transferring and eating independently. In their opinion, the petitioner cannot carry out his office work as Junior Assistant.