Janak Raj vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the benefit of enhancement of age of retirement upto 60 years in the light of circulars dated 16.2.1996, Annexure P2, and dated 17.1.2010, Annexure P3, on the ground that he is a disabled person and come within the scope and ambit of provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short to be referred as ''1995 Act''). The petitioner, whose date of birth is 25.2.1953, was appointed as a Clerk on temporary basis on 3.10.1978 in the Office of District Education Officer, Ferozepur. His services were regularized with effect from 1.10.1980. Thereafter, the petitioner earned promotions to the post of Senior Assistant on 12.5,2000 and to the post of Superintendent on 28.10.2010. The petitioner retired on 28.2.2011 upon attaining the age of superannuation.

While in service on 22.1.2005, the petitioner met with an unfortunate accident as a result of which his left elbow, forearm, left hand, thumb and fingers were damaged. In terms of medical certificate appended as Annexure P1 issued by the Assistant Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur, the petitioner suffers from a 65% permanent disability element. It is contended that the petitioner would be covered under the definition of disabled person under the provisions of 1995 Act. The State of Punjab issued circular dated 16.2.1996, Annexure P2, as also circular dated 17.1.2001, Annexure P3, wherein benefit as regards enhancement of the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years was granted to such employees who suffered from the disability of being blind.

The present writ petition has been filed in terms of raising a plea that there is no such categorization in the 1995 Act as regards the physically handicapped employees and accordingly, the benefit of enhancement of the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years could not be denied to the petitioner as he fell within the definition of the disabled employee u/s 2(i) and Section 2(t) of the 1995 Act.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

The question as regards the benefit of enhancement of retirement age to person suffering from, a disability as defined under the 1995 Act is no longer res-integra. One Shri Bhupinder Singh had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 7233 of 2010 before this Court questioning the action of the State Government in confining the benefit of extension of two years in service to only such disabled persons who are blind in terms of the circulars dated 16.2.1996 and 17.1.2001 and thereby discriminating against the other disabled persons. Aforementioned Shri Bhupinder Singh was an orthopedically handicapped person. Civil Writ Petition No. 7233 of 2010 was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.5.2011 and it was held that all kinds of disabilities under the 1995 Act are to be treated equally and as such, there cannot be any discrimination between persons suffering from one kind of disability or the other. The State of Punjab preferred LPA No. 1719 of 2012 against the judgment dated 25.5.2011 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 7233 of 2010 and the LPA stands dismissed in terms of order dated 25.9.2012.

Even though issue pertaining to grant of benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years to the disabled employees under the 1995 Act stands settled, yet I find that there is an issue regarding delay in the facts of the present case, which is quite material and is required to be considered. The admitted position of fact is that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 28.2.2011. The present writ petition has been filed on 20.12.2012 seeking the benefit of enhancement of the date of retirement by 24 months even though a period of almost 21 months out of such extended period claimed already stand lapsed. In some what similar circumstances, the issue regarding delay in invoking the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction was considered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Another Vs. Jaswant Singh and Another, This was a case in which certain employees raised the issue that they were not liable to be retired at the age of 58 years but should be permitted to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. They were still in service when the writ petitions were filed. The writ petitions were allowed. Placing reliance upon that judgment, some of the employees who already stood retired, filed writ petitions claiming identical relief. Such writ petitions were allowed by the High Court in terms of its earlier judgment. The judgment of the High Court was impugned before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and it was categorically held that persons who approached the Court at a belated stage placing reliance upon an order passed in favour of employees similarly situated earlier in point of time, can be denied the discretionary relief on account of delay and laches. In the case of UP Jal Nigam (supra), it was held in the following terms:

So far as the principal issue is concerned, that has been settled by this court. Therefore, there is no quarrel over the legal proposition. But the only question is grant of relief to such other persons who were not vigilant and did not wake up to challenge their retirement and accepted the same but filed writ petitions after the judgment of this court in Harwindra Kumar Vs. Chief Engineer, Karmik and Others, . Whether they are entitled to same relief or not? Therefore, a serious question that arises for consideration is whether the employees who did not wake up to challenge their retirement and accepted the same, collected their post-retirement benefits, can such persons be given the relief in the light of the subsequent decision delivered by this court?

The question of delay and laches has been examined by this court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same relief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years. A chart has been supplied to us in which it has been pointed out that about 9 writ petitions were filed by the employees of the Nigam before their retirement wherein their retirement was somewhere between 30.6.2005 and 31.7.2005. Two writ petitions were filed wherein no relief of interim order was passed. They were granted interim order. Thereafter a spate of writ petitions followed in which employees who retired in the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, woke up to file writ petitions in 2005 and 2006 much after their retirement. Whether such persons should be granted the same relief or not?

xx xx xx

Therefore, in case at this belated stage if similar relief is to be given to the persons who have not approached the court that will unnecessarily overburden the Nigam and the Nigam will completely collapse with the liability of payment to these persons in terms of two years'' salary and increased benefit of pension and other consequential benefits. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the persons who have approached the court after their retirement. Only those persons who have filed the writ petitions when they were in service or who have obtained interim order for their retirement, those persons should be allowed to stand to benefit and not others.

The petitioner herein stood retired on 28.2.2011. He chose not to approach this Court in terms of the relief regarding enhancement in the age of retirement prior to his superannuation or for that matter immediately thereafter. There is no explanation forthcoming in the pleadings or at the time of arguments to explain the delay of almost 21 months in approaching this Court while raising a claim for enhancement of the retirement age to the extent of 24 months.

Keeping in view the enunciation of law by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of UP Jal Nigam (supra), the petitioner herein is not entitled to the relief prayed for and the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. For the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is dismissed.