Allowed

Dharminder v. State of Hry. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Feb 2008CWP/6457/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed appointment of a handicapped candidate for a Pharmacist post despite him crossing the 40-year age limit. The Court relied on the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 to interpret age relaxation benefits for reserved posts.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Pharmacist with effect from the date persons junior to him were appointed, ensuring they receive benefits equivalent to those lower in the merit

Dharminder Vs State of Hry. and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

CWP No.6457/2007 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CWP No.6457/2007 Date of Decision: 5.2.2008

¶4

Dharminder

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and another

¶7

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶8

Present:- Sh.R.K.Malik,Advocatee for the petitioner. Sh.Harish Rathee, Sr.D.A.G.Haryana for the respondents.

¶9

¶10

JASBIR SINGH, J.(ORAL)

¶11

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that direction be issued to respondents to appoint the petitioner against the post of Pharmacist. It is an admitted fact that 20 posts of Pharmacists, reserved for handicapped candidates, were advertised on 30.9.2006. In that advertisement it was mentioned that age limit will be as per instructions of the government. Selection was made on the basis of interview conducted on 13.10.2006. As per the select list petitioner was put at Sr.No.18. However, when appointment was not offered to him, he filed this writ petition. Date of birth of the petitioner is 8.9.1966 i.e. more than 40 years.

¶12

It is apparent from the records that appointment was not given to the petitioner on the ground that he has already crossed the age of 40 years i.e. the age fixed by the government for entry into government service. In this writ petition the petitioner has claimed appointment by placing reliance upon instructions dated 4.5.1966 (Annexure P-2) and letter written by Director General, Health Services Haryana to the Financial Commissioner,

¶13

CWP No.6457/2007 2

¶14

recommending relaxation of age in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of instructions, referred to above.

¶15

After notice, reply has been filed.

¶16

Claim of the petitioner has been negated by stating that age relaxation can be given only with regard to the posts which found mention in document Annexure P-2 and as the post of Pharmacist is not mentioned in that document, petitioner is not entitled to get any relaxation qua age.

¶17

Perusal of document Annexure P-2 ( instructions dated 4.5.1966) indicates that the government has taken a conscious decision to give age relaxation of 10 years to handicapped persons for their entry into government service. Some posts have been mentioned in that document, for which this age relaxation can be given to the handicapped persons. Admittedly, post of Pharmacist is not mentioned therein.

¶18

Sh.R.K.Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon provisions of Sections 32,33 and 38 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act,1995, to show that the case of the petitioner, to get age relaxation, is fully covered by abovesaid provisions. Perusal of the provisions of the Act referred to above clearly indicates that with a view to create barrier free environment for persons with disabilities, to remove discrimination against them in sharing the development benefits, to avoid any exploitation of those individuals, to lay down strategy for development programmes and equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities, the abovesaid Act was enacted in the year 1995. Vide provisions of the Act, it was made incumbent for the government to give benefit of employment to the persons suffering from disabilities as found mention in the Act referred to above.

¶19

CWP No.6457/2007 3

¶20

Section 32 of the said Act makes it imperative for the government to identify posts which can be reserved and offered to the physically handicapped persons. This provision further provides that after every three years the State is bound to review the list of posts, then identify and update the list of posts reserved for handicapped persons. By referring to abovesaid provisions, counsel for the petitioner states that posts of Pharmacists which the State has reserved for handicapped persons deemed to have been included in the posts shown in Annexure P-2. We are in agreement with the contentions raised. Provisions of Section 33 of the Act envisages that some percentage of posts be reserved for physically handicapped persons. Section 38 clearly provides that to give benefit of reservation to physically handicapped persons State may relax the upper age limit for entry into government service. A conjoint reading of Sections 32,33 and 38 of the Act, makes it very clear that the age relaxation as provided for the handicapped persons vide instructions Annexure P-2 dated 4.5.1966, is available to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner fulfills the eligibility conditions except that he has cross the age of 40 years by few months.

¶21

In view of the facts mentioned above, we allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Pharmacist w.e.f the date persons junior to him in merit were appointed . It is further made clear that he be given all the benefits as allowed to persons lower in merit to him.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that petitioner shall not claim any financial benefits for the period he has not worked on the post in question.

¶23

CWP No.6457/2007 4

¶24

Needful be done within two months from the date of receipt of a

¶25

copy of this order.

¶26

(Jasbir Singh) Judge

¶27

5.2.2008 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge

Dharminder v. State of Hry. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharminder v. State of Hry. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Satish Chhabra Vs District and Sessions Judge and Ors.

Jagan Nath and Anr. Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Kamla Verma Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Dharmbir Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Dal Singh Vs State of Hry. and Ors.