IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 8738 of 2009 Dhanpat Ram .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik Ravi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was initially appointed as Peon on 01.03.1977. In the year 1982, he was promoted as Clerk. In the year 2006, the Government has issued instructions to all the Head of the Departments to the effect that the age of retirement for physical handicapped Government employee would stand increased from 58 years to 60 years. Subsequent, clarification was also issued in regard to the authority competent to certify the handicapped of the person concerned. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana, also clarified that for the purpose of giving extension, the Medical Board of PGIMS, Rohtak shall be designated as Medical Board for the State. The petitioner has a certificate showing his disability to be 75% and, thus, he is clearly a physically handicapped person. On the basis of medical report issued by PGIMS, Rohtak on 21.03.2009, the petitioner represented that he be retained in government service beyond the age of 58 years, which he was completing on 30.03.2009. The claim of the petitioner was not granted primarily on the ground that he did not submit the disability certificate before 3 months of his Civil Writ Petition No. 8738 of 2009 -2- retirement . When the case came up for hearing before this Court on 15.07.2010, it was observed that this would not be a valid ground to defeat the right of the petitioner, once he had given disability certificate to the extent of 75% by the competent Medical Board. The State counsel was, accordingly, directed to have instructions in this regard. Mr. Nehra, today placed before me order dated 09.08.2010 reciting that the petitioner would be granted extension of 2 years beyond the age of 58 years and thus relief claimed in the petition has been granted to the petitioner. The communication as handed over by the State counsel is kept on record and collectively marked as 'A'. The relief claimed in the writ petition have, thus, been conceded. The counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to order passed by this Court on 29.05.2009. While issuing notice of motion, the Court had, inter alia, observed as under:- “..... It is made clear that in case this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to retain the petitioner in service, it would not be open to them to take a plea of 'no work no pay'.” The petitioner obviously has received pensionary benefits. In order to get pay, the petitioner would have to refund the pension. This condition is so contained in Mark 'A' which cannot be faulted. The direction to refund the pensionary amount would obviously mean that the petitioner would be entitled to pay and allowances for the period he had remained without work. Civil Writ Petition No. 8738 of 2009 -3- In any case, the plea of 'No work No pay' would not be available, in view of order dated 29.05.2009 passed by this Court. August 25 , 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE