Appeal against rejection of claim for two-year retirement age extension for physically handicapped police employee. Court held police department exempted from Disability Act and lacked specific policy for superseding superannuation age, dismissing appeal.
No direction issued to respondents to extend service; appeal dismissed as it had no merit.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
LPA No. 1244 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 23, 2010
Inder Singh
…Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate, for the appellant.
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 18.9.2008, passed by the learned Single Judge, rejecting the claim made by the petitionerappellant that the benefit of instructions dated 28.3.2006, providing extension in age of retirement by two years to physically handicapped employees, should have been extended to him as well.
The petitioner-appellant had approached this Court by filing a writ petition with a prayer for extension in his service by two years claiming that he had suffered a handicap of 70% during the course of his employment. However, the learned Single Judge has found that the benefit of the aforesaid instructions dated 28.3.2006,
LPA No. 1244 of 2009 (O&M)
2
has not been extended to the police department and it would not per se apply to them. The learned Single Judge has found that there were separate instructions issued by the Director General of Police laying down that 3% quota of handicapped persons has been converted into sports quota in view of the special requirement of the police department. It has further been held by the learned Single Judge that the police department is exempted from the operation of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). Some justification has also been proffered in exempting the police department from the operation of the Act by keeping in view the nature of their duties required to be performed by the police force.
Having heard learned counsel, we are of the considered view that in the absence of the policy of the State applicable to the police personnel extending the benefit of two years of service after attaining the age of superannuation of 58, no direction could have been issued to the respondents. Moreover, the police department has been exempted from the operation of the Act. The respondents are well within their rights to exempt any department by virtue of Section 33 of the Act, which reads thus:
LPA No. 1244 of 2009 (O&M)
3
Provided that the appropriate Government may,
having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, may, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.”
For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
July 23, 2010
(A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE
Pkapoor
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the benefit of extension in age of retirement by two years for physically handicapped employees under instructions dated 28.3.2006 applies to police department.
Whether the State of Haryana could exempt the police department from the operation of the Persons with Disabilities Act via Section 33.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Inder Singh
State of Haryana
M.M. KUMAR
A.N. JINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
