AMRIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is physically challenged, was appointed as Social Studies Mistress on adhoc basis on 18.04.1976 with Punjab Education Department. Thereafter, she was appointed as Punjabi Lecturer in the year 2000 under the physically handicapped quota and retired from service on 28.02.2003, after attaining the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years. Petitioner was suffering from severe post polio paralysis affecting her right lower limb having more than 80% permanent disability. The Government issued Notification dated 23.10.1998, notifying the Act known as "Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, wherein the meaning of 'locomotor disability' was given. Vide Circular dated 16.02.1996 (Annexure P-2), the Government raised the age of retirement of blind State Government employees from 58 years to 60 years, subject to their being declared physically and mentally fit after the age of 58 years by the concerned Civil Surgeon.

(2.) According to the petitioner, one of the physically challenged Government employee filed CWP No.7233 of 2010 titled as "Bhupinder Singh vs State of Punjab and others", claiming that he should be retired at the age of 60 years. The said writ petition was decided in his favour vide judgment dated 25.05.2011 (Annexure P-4). The LPA filed against the said judgment was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 25.09.2012 (Annexure P-5). The State went in SLP before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 16.09.2014 (Annexure P-6). Therefore, the petitioner claims that he should have been retired at the age of 60 years and she, accordingly, presses for treating her retirement at the age of 60 years and allowing all the benefits, like salary, seniority, gratuity, leave encashment etc.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also carefully gone through the case file.