-1- Civil Writ Petition No.15278 of 2007. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: April 01,2008. Ram Sarup ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.R.N. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.B.S. Rana, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 2 to 4. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer made is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated April 23, 2007 (Annexure P-5) whereby the petitioner has been retired from the service of the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, -2- Civil Writ Petition No.15278 of 2007. Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as `the Nigam') with effect from April 30, 2007 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e 58 years. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Nigam to raise the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 to 60 years on the ground that he is physically handicapped person. This claim is based on instructions dated January 31, 2006 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana, Chandigarh and adopted by the Nigam as per letter dated May 02, 2006 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner was working as Junior Engineer (Field) with the Nigam and was posted at Rohtak. On attaining the age of 58 years, he was ordered to be retired with effect from April 30, 2007. The claim of the petitioner now is that he could not have been retired at the age of 58 years because as per the instructions dated January 31, 2006 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Government of Haryana and adopted by the Nigam vide letter dated May 02, 2006 (Annexure P-2) the physically handicapped employees who possesses the minimum degree of disability of 70% will retire at the age of 60 years. The degree of disability of the petitioner is 75%. In support of his claim, the petitioner has placed on record the Certificate dated May 10, 2006 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Office of Civil Surgeon, Rohtak. In the reply filed by the Nigam, it has been pleaded that as per the instructions issued by the -3- Civil Writ Petition No.15278 of 2007. Government of Haryana bearing No.16/5/95-6GS-II dated August 31, 1995 and adopted by the Nigam vide letter No.Ch- 150/NGE/G-649/Vol.-III dated November 13, 1995, the competent authority for issuing the disability certificate is the Special Medical Board and the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon (Annexure P-3) is not admissible for the claim of being a handicapped. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the instructions dated January 31, 2006 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Government of Haryana and as adopted by the Nigam vide letter dated May 02, 2006 (Annexure P-2) which clearly lay down that the normal retirement age of disabled Group `A' to Group `D' employees who possess the minimum degree of disability of 70 % is raised from 58 years to 60 years. We have perused the instructions issued by the Government of Haryana as contained in letter No.16/5/95-6GS-II dated August 31, 1995 and adopted by the Nigam vide letter No.Ch-150/NGE/G- 649/Vol.-III dated November 13, 1995, which have been relied upon by the Nigam in the written statement and annexed therewith to contend that the competent authority for issuing the disability certificate is the Special Medical Board. These instructions, in fact, relate to providing “employment to a dependant of a deceased Government employee under Ex- gratia Scheme” and have nothing to do with the point at -4- Civil Writ Petition No.15278 of 2007. issue. In view of the above, this writ petition succeeds, the order dated April 23, 2007 (Annexure P-5) is set aside and a direction is issued to the Nigam to retain the petitioner in service till the age of 60 years. As the petitioner has since retired, he will be taken back in service so as to retire him at the age of 60 years. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE April 01, 2008. ak