JAIPAL JANGRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in not allowing him to continue in service till the age of 60 years.

(2.) It is not disputed that by letter dated 02.11.1988 the Government had decided to extend the service of physically handicapped persons by 2 years. However, at that time two conditions were imposed. First that the person should have been blind at the time of entry into service and second that he should have been more than 30 years of age when he was appointed. Thereafter by letter dated 18.03.1996 (Annexure R-1) both the conditions were withdrawn and it was decided that the normal age of retirement of blind employees would be 60 years. It is against this backdrop of rules that the petitioner is claiming the present relief. The petitioner was appointed as a Tracer on 24.08.1982 and was declared blind on 17.10.2011. His normal date of retirement was 28.02.2014 and he applied for extension on 03.02.2014 praying that he may be referred to the Medical Board constituted by the Government so that report regarding his medical condition could be obtained. However, no action had been taken thereon. Thereafter he filed the writ petition bearing CWP No.2802 of 2014 for seeking extension of service period beyond 58 years which was disposed of on 17.02.2014 in the following terms:-

(3.) In the written statement, apart from the above mentioned reason two more reasons have been given. One is the complete misreading of the letter dated 18.03.1996 (Annexure R-1) since it has been sought to be stated that he was not granted extension because he was not 30 years plus at the time of appointment and was not blind at that time. In my opinion, this is an attempt to mislead this Court. The second reason taken is that he did not apply for medical examination from the Medical Board of P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak which fact is also false in lieu of letter (Annexure P-6). In the circumstances, apart from deciding this case I deem it appropriate to issue notice to Sh. V.G. Machra, Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No.1, PWD (B&R) Branch, Hisar who had signed the reply so that he would appear before this Court to explain why these two averments were made.