GULSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working as Accountant with Municipal Corporation, Rohtak, has approached this court impugning the action of the authorities, whereby he has not been permitted to continue in service till the age of 60 years despite the fact that he was physically disabled to the extent of 70%. Briefly, the pleaded facts are that the petitioner, whose date of birth is 17.2.1954, joined as Clerk on 6.5.1972. Thereafter, he was promoted as Accountant. On 22.7.2011, he was sent on deputation to Municipal Corporation, Rohtak. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner was to retire from service on 29.2.2012. As the right leg of the petitioner had been amputated, he became physically disabled to the extent of 70%. He remained admitted in the hospital from 6.1.2012 to 9.1.2012 and the stitches were removed only on 24.1.2012. He applied for issuance of certificate for his being physically disabled on 3.2.2012. The petitioner was examined by a Board of Doctors and issued a certificate of permanent disability to the extent of 70% on 9.2.2012. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner applied to the authorities on 24.2.2012 before his retirement for permitting him to continue in service till the age of 60 years. However, he was relieved from his duties vide office order dated 29.2.2012. Even the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana was also rejected on 10.7.2012. It is at this stage that the petitioner has approached this court praying that action of the authorities be set aside and the petitioner be permitted to continue in service till the age of 60 years.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ground on which the case of the petitioner for extension in service has been rejected is that the application had not been submitted 3 months prior to the date of his retirement. In the present case, the same was not possible as the petitioner was lastly operated upon for amputation of his right leg only on 4.11.2011. He remained admitted in the hospital from 6.1.2012 to 9.1.2012. The stitches were removed on 24.1.2012. After he got the disability certificate on 9.2.2012, he applied for extension in service on 24.2.2012 well before his retirement. The disability certificate had been issued by a Board of Doctors of PGIMS, Rohtak. He further submitted that the instructions issued by the government providing for extension in service to the physically disabled employees clearly provide that the application could be filed upto the date of retirement, though normally it should be filed at least 3 months before the retirement to enable the department to carry out the requisite verification. In the present case, the petitioner was unable to move the application 3 months in advance considering the fact that his right leg was amputated just a month prior to his retirement.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State defended the action of the authorities stating that the date of birth of the petitioner being 17.2.1954, he completed the age of 58 years on 16.2.2012. The application for extension in service was filed on 24.2.2012, hence, was not covered under the instructions. He has also referred to the communication dated 30.4.2012 from the office of Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Urban Local Bodies issuing a clarification in the case of one Chand Ram Clerk, whose case for extension in service was rejected only on the ground that he had filed the application one month before the date of his retirement. Learned counsel further submitted that period has been prescribed in the instructions only for the reason that the authorities also require some time for verification of the claim made by an employee. If an application is filed at the fag -end, the extension in service is not possible. The employees have to be alive of their rights and move the application well within time. In the present case, the petitioner is to be blamed on account of delayed action by him.