SURAJ MAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was to attain the age of 58 years on 30.06.2010. In January, 2010 i.e. 6 months prior to the said date, he applied for extension of two years in service on the ground of being physically handicapped in view of the instructions Annexures P-2 and R-2. As per the said instructions if any person applied for the extension on the ground of being physically handicapped, his case would be referred to the PGIMS, Rohtak for certification of his physical handicap. Instead of doing that, by letter dated 18.6.2010 his case was rejected on the ground that the same was not supported by a certificate of the PGIMS, Rohtak. It is noteworthy that even a copy of this letter was not endorsed to the petitioner and he was retired on 30.06.2010. He filed CWP No. 18242 of 2010. Instead of filing reply, his case was conceded and he was allowed to join with the result that the said CWP No. 18242 of 2010 was rendered infructuous and was disposed of by order Annexure P-16. However, for the period during which he remained out of service he was denied the monetary benefits. By the present writ petition he has prayed for his due remuneration for the said period. In the written statement again the plea has been taken that his case for extension could not be considered for want of certificate from the PGIMS, Rohtak. There is no reply as to why, in terms of the instructions Annexure R-2, his case was not referred at the appropriate time to the PGIMS, Rohtak.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that if the petitioner had unilaterally gone to PGIMS he would not have been given the certificate. Such certificate could only have been given if the matter had been referred to the said hospital by the Government. The issue, therefore, is whether the Government is now justified in denying to the petitioner the payment for the period during which he remained out of service.

(3.) In my considered opinion in view of the stipulation in the policy formulated by the Government it-self (Annexure R-2) it was incumbent upon the respondents to have referred the case of the petitioner to the PGIMS and not to have rejected it. Had that been so, the petitioner would have been allowed to continue in service and would have earned all his benefits.