RESHAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has joined the services of respondent-Municipal Council as a Fireman on regular basis on 19.12.1984. As per clause (a) of Rule 3.26 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I, the date of retirement of Government employee other than a class IV employee was on attaining the age of 58 years. However, as per notification dated 8.10.2012, Rule 3.26 was amended and now extension can be granted to the Government employees for two years only, if it is considered expedient in the public interest by the respondent-State. The retirement of the petitioner was due on 30.9.2014 on completion of 58 years of age and in pursuance to the amended provisions, he submitted his request for grant of extension vide application dated 24.9.2014 which was recommended by respondent No. 4 by recording a reason that the extension was in the interest of the Municipal Council as there was acute crunch of manpower whereafter, the extension was granted for one year i.e. w.e.f. 1.10.2014 to 30.9.2015. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for second year extension after completion of 59 years of service vide application dated 17.7.2015. However, it was recommended but the extension was not granted. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of extension in service beyond 59 years of age to the extent of removal of imposition of condition to undertake physical fitness test as per the rules governing the case of fresh recruitment/appointment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working even after the date of retirement and his work and conduct was satisfactory. Subsequently, a condition of passing of physical fitness test was imposed in an illegal manner just to deny his claim, whereas, no such condition was there at the time of earlier extension. Learned counsel also submits that such condition is required at the time of initial appointment but at the time of granting extension, no such condition is required. This condition was imposed with ulterior motive but the petitioner was ready to undergo that also. However, the case of the petitioner was kept pending for sufficient long period and even the period of second extension i.e. upto 60 years of age has also expired. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not only the petitioner has been harassed but the condition of passing physical test is also arbitrary, illegal and against the statutory Rules. It is not only discriminatory but also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In response to notice of motion, separate reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, 3, 4 as well as respondent No.5 were filed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that while recommending the case of the petitioner for further extension, it was clearly mentioned that petitioner is not physically fit for grant of extension. Physical fitness was required for best utilization of the resources available with them in view of the nature of duties of the post of Fireman as good health is required to meet out the situation of emergency. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the staff is less in comparison to sanctioned strength and good physical health of the limited staff is required.