(1.) At the time of superannuation, the illness of the petitioner was diagnosed as Limb Girdle Muscular Dystrophy, characterized by progressive muscle wastage which affects predominantly hip and shoulder muscles. The effect of the medical condition in relation to the disability, in the opinion of the Medical Board presided over by the Senior Professor & Head, Department of Medicine, PGIMS, Rohtak and four other doctors including the Assistant Professor of Neurology, PGIMS, Rohtak was that the patient suffered from severe Neurological Deficit (100%). The Board declared that the patient is not fit for the job of Ophthalmic Assistant, the post on which the petitioner served at the time of retirement.
(2.) With these disabilities present, the petitioner was rendered completely unfit to discharge duties of his office. The policy instructions of the Haryana Government conceded two years of extended service beyond the age of retirement at age 58 in cases where an employee suffered from minimum certified disability of 70%. The petitioner fell in that category. There was some dispute regarding non-production of the disability certificate by the petitioner as per impugned order dated 31.10.2012 (Annex P-11) informing him that since his disability certificate was not received in the office of the Senior Medical Officer, CHC, Narnaund, Hisar, he was being relieved from service on the date of retirement i.e. on attaining the age of 58 years. He was asked to produce papers and complete his documents pertaining to his pension at the earliest otherwise the office disclaimed responsibility for any delay.
(3.) The department of respondent Government ultimately accepted his case and disbursed two years of salary i.e. up to October, 2014 in April 2018 which payment has been received by the petitioner pending litigation. However, Mr. Dhanwal submits that the petitioner would also be entitled to interest on delayed payments, which claim is pressed at the hearing on the petition as a subsisting one which deserves to be paid.