RAM NIWAS SONI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 17.7.2010 (Annexure P-6) issued by the Commissioner & Director General, Secondary Education, Haryana-respondent No. 2 vide which the representation of the petitioner for granting him extension beyond the age of his superannuation by two years on the ground that he is physically handicapped, stands rejected. Petitioner, who appears in person states that he was working as an Assistant in the Office of the District Education Officer, Bhiwani, when he vide his application dated 25.6.2009 prayed for granting him extension by two years in the light of the Haryana Government instructions dated 28.3.2006 (Annexure P-1). His application was accompanied with a certificate of disability issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Bhiwani. The case of the petitioner was forwarded by the District Education Officer, Bhiwani on 27.7.2009, which was returned by the Director, Secondary Education with the objection that the petitioner's medical certificate should have been issued by the Medical Board PGIMS, Rohtak. Petitioner appeared before the Medical Board in PGIMS, Rohtak, and was examined on 9.10.2009, wherein his physical disability was assessed at 70%. A fax was sent by the PGIMS, Rohtak to the office of the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana on 23.10.2009. The original documents of the petitioner were forwarded by the District Education Officer, Bhiwani along with the certificate of the Medical Board of PGIMS, Rohtak, which was received in the office of the Director Secondary Education on 9.11.2009.

(2.) The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that complete case of the petitioner has not been received by the office of the Directorate prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner and the petitioner stood retired on 31.10.2009 on attaining the age of 58 years It has further been asserted by the respondents that the petitioner was required to submit his complete case along with the documents one year prior to the date of his retirement, which the petitioner has failed and, therefore, is not entitled to the extension. This ground, the petitioner states, for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is not justified and accordingly prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.7.2010 (Annexure P-6).

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the instructions dated 21.4.2008 (Annexure R-1) to contend that the petitioner was required to attach disability certificate along with the application for extension in his age beyond 58 years from the Medical Board of PGIMS, Rohtak, which certificate was not attached along with the application, which was required to be submitted at least one year prior to the date of retirement. This requirement stands incorporated with an intention to get the contents of the application and the certificate verified. Since the case of the petitioner was received in the office of the Directorate only on 27.7.2009, which was also not fulfilling the mandate of the instructions dated 21.4.2008, the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondents He accordingly prays that the writ petition is without any merit and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.