LAWS(P&H)-2012-12-91

JANAL RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On December 21, 2012
Janal Raj Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the benefit of enhancement of age of retirement upto 60 years in the light of circulars dated 16.2.1996, Annexure P2, and dated 17.1.2010, Annexure P3, on the ground that he is a disabled person and come within the scope and ambit of provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short to be referred as '1995 Act'). The petitioner, whose date of birth is 25.2.1953, was appointed as a Clerk on temporary basis on 3.10.1978 in the Office of District Education Officer, Ferozepur. His services were regularized with effect from 1.10.1980. Thereafter, the petitioner earned promotions to the post of Senior Assistant on 12.5,2000 and to the post of Superintendent on 28.10.2010. The petitioner retired on 28.2.2011 upon attaining the age of superannuation.

(2.) While in service on 22.1.2005, the petitioner met with an unfortunate accident as a result of which his left elbow, forearm, left hand, thumb and fingers were damaged. In terms of medical certificate appended as Annexure P1 issued by the Assistant Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur, the petitioner suffers from a 65% permanent disability element. It is contended that the petitioner would be covered under the definition of disabled person under the provisions of 1995 Act. The State of Punjab issued circular dated 16.2.1996, Annexure P2, as also circular dated 17.1.2001, Annexure P3, wherein benefit as regards enhancement of the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years was granted to such employees who suffered from the disability of being blind.

(3.) The present writ petition has been filed in terms of raising a plea that there is no such categorization in the 1995 Act as regards the physically handicapped employees and accordingly, the benefit of enhancement of the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years could not be denied to the petitioner as he fell within the definition of the disabled employee under Section 2(i) and Section 2(t) of the 1995 Act.