The petitioner sought enhancement of retirement age to 60 years for all categories of disabled government employees. The court noted that the notification granting this benefit had been withdrawn before the petitioner's superannuation. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner was not entitled to the withdrawn benefit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2024:HHC:4673
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPOA No. : 78 of 2019 Reserved on : 02.07.2024 Decided on : 08.07.2024
Joginder Paul Zear
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…....Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
| For the petitioner : | Mr. Taran K. Advocate. |
Sharma, |
|---|---|---|
| For the respondents: | Mr. H.S. Rawat, Advocate General. |
Additional |
Virender Singh, Judge
Petitioner-Joginder Paul Zear has invoked the
jurisdiction of the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), by way of Original Application No.2920 of 2019, preferred, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals
2
2024:HHC:4673
Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), seeking the
following substantive reliefs:-
“( a ) That the impugned act of the state not granting the benefit of enhancement of superannuating age from 58 to 60 years to all the categories of disabled government employee as specified under section 2(i) of the persons with disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of rights and full participation) Act 1995 and limiting the same to the blind Government Employee only as per the notification dated 29-03-2013 may kindly be declared illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, malafide, against the principal of service of Jurisprudence, natural justice and legitimate Expectation and against the spirit of persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of rights and full participation) Act 1995.
( b ) That the impugned act of the respondent department superannuating the applicant at the age of 58 years on 31/05/2020 may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the Rules of service jurisprudence and may kindly be set-aside and quashed in the interest of justice.
( c ) That the present Original Application may kindly be allowed and directing the respondents to modify the notification/Office memorandum dated 23/03/2013 and extent the benefit of enhancement of retirement age to all categories of disabled Government Employee as specified under section 2(i) of the Persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of rights and full participation) Act 1995.
( d ) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all monitory benefits to the applicant from the due date with interest @9% per annum.”
3
2024:HHC:4673
4
2024:HHC:4673
5
2024:HHC:4673
“2(i) "Disability" means-
(i) Blindness; (ii) Low vision; (iii) Leprosy-cured; (iv) Hearing impairment; (v) Loco motor disability; (vi) Mental retardation; (vii) Mental illness”
Office Memorandum dated 29.03.2013 has been
withdrawn, by the State Government, on 04.11.2019.
6
2024:HHC:4673
extended to the petitioner or not, as, when, the said decision was rendered, by this Court, the notification dated 29.03.2013 (Annexure A-3), was in force and later on, the same had been withdrawn.
(Virender Singh) Judge
July 08, 2024
Gaurav Thakur
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of enhanced superannuation age for all categories of disabled government employees when the relevant notification had been withdrawn before his super
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishan Chand vs. State of H.P. & OrsReferred¶34
Original Application No.1004 of 2015 Krishan Chand vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
State of H.P. & Ors. Versus Krishan ChandReferred¶35
CWP No.1577/2018-H State of H.P. & Ors. Versus Krishan Chand
Dharam Chand Versus State of H.P. and othersRelied on¶40
CWP No.2012 of 2019 Dharam Chand Versus State of H.P. and others
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Joginder Paul Zear
State of Himachal Pradesh
Anr
Virender Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
