Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM CHANDER SHEOKAND versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHER

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Chander Sheokand v. State of Haryana and other - CWP-4424-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 7585 (21 September 2006)

C.W.P. No. 4424 of 2006 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No. 4424 of 2006

Date of Decision: September 26, 2006

Ram Chander Sheokand

.....Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana and other s

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

Present:- Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana,

for the respondents.

-.-

M.M. KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

The prayer made in this petition is for issuance of direction to the respondents to raise the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years on the ground that he is physically handicapped person. The aforementioned claim is based on the instructions dated January 31,2006 C.W.P. No. 4424 of 2006 [2]

(P-4). The undisputed facts are that the petitioner has been working with the respondent State on various posts and on attaining the age of 58 years, he was retired on March 31, 2006 from the post of Senior Librarian from District Library, Jind. The claim of the petitioner is that he could not have been retired at the age of 58 years because the instructions dated January 31,2006 (P-4) applies to him inasmuch as the petitioner is more than 70% handicapped. In support of the claim made by the petitioner, he has placed on record the certificate dated February 22, 2006 (P-7) which has been issued by Civil Surgeon, Jind. He has also attached another certificate alongwith his replication issued by Chief Medical Officer/ Civil Surgeon, Jind, on July 13, 2006,clarifying that the certificate dated February 22, 2006 issued earlier by him had been issued by the competent Medical Board constituted under the Chairmanship of Chief Medical Officer, Jind, for the purpose of service matters relating to the employees of the Haryana Government. It has again been reiterated that the petitioner is 70% physically handicapped as has already been declared and shown in the certificate dated February 22, 2006 (P-7).

The only stand taken by the respondent State in its written statement is that the certificate has been got prepared firstly from Senior Medical Officer, General Hospital, Narwana and then Ortho Surgeon, General Hospital, Jind and thereafter countersigned by the Civil Surgeon, Jind. The objection raised is that stamps put on this medical certificate shows that it was valid for handicapped pension only and it is valid only for five years. The aforementioned averments have been made in para 1 of the C.W.P. No. 4424 of 2006 [3]

preliminary objections raised in the written statement. It has been asserted that certificate has not been issued by a competent medical board constituted by the Chief Medical Officer of the District in accordance with the instructions of the Government dated March 28,2006. Written statement was filed before filing of the certificate with the replication, which in fact clarify all the objections.

Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the instructions dated January 31, 2006 (P-4) which clearly laid down that the normal retirement age of disabled group `A' to group `D' employees who have 70% disability is raised from 58 years to 60 years. The substantive part of the instructions of the Government is discernable from para 2 of the instructions, which read as under:-

"2. With a view to maintaining in the matter of retirement age in respect of Handicapped employees, the Government, on further consideration of the matter, has decided to raise the normal retirement age of such disabled Group `A' to Group `D' employees who possess the minimum degree of disability of 70% from 58 years to 60 years."

In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and accordingly, a direction issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his retention in service till the age of 60 years. It has already been pointed out that the petitioner has retired on March 31,2006 on C.W.P. No. 4424 of 2006 [4]

attaching the age of 58 years and the petitioner may have to be taken back in service so as to retire him at the age of 60 years.

(M.M.KUMAR)

JUDGE

September 26, 2006 (M.M.S.BEDI)

sanjay JUDGE

FIT FOR INDEXING


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.