C.W.P. No.5103 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.5103 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 14.11.2011 Smt.Bimla Singla PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri V.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sunil Nehra, Senior D.A.G. Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J. In this petition, the petitioner who is physically handicapped to the extent of 70%, prays that she be retained in service upto the age of 60 years in accordance with the instructions Annexure P-3 and the other subsequent revised instructions in this regard. The petitioner suffers from Osteo Arthritis of the hips and knees with lumbo sacral spondylosis. The disability of the petitioner is not questioned and the solitary reason for denying her extension in service beyond the age of 58 years upto the age of 60 years is that the case of the petitioner was initiated belatedly, whereas the instructions stipulate and require an incumbent to submit the case for extension in service on completion of the age of 57 years. It has been stated that C.W.P. No.5103 of 2011 -2- the petitioner initiated her case on 9.11.2010 and completed the same on 31.12.2010, which was beyond the period stipulated in the instructions. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the stand of the respondents cannot be justified. The petitioner claims the benefit of instructions which are beneficial in character and meant to enable the physically challenged persons to get sufficient support for themselves in the evening of their lives. Any restrictive interpretation which has the result of depriving a person of the benefits of these instructions on technicalities is bound to result in defeating the laudable object of such instructions. The endeavour of the State in affording the benefit of such beneficial provisions has to be liberal and not fettered to a bondage of hyper-technical reasoning. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the denial of extension of service to the petitioner beyond the age of 58 years is unjustified in the given set of circumstances, especially on the reasoning detailed in the reply. Consequently, the writ petition is accepted and the matter is remitted back to the respondents to take a decision afresh in the light of what has been stated above to hold the petitioner entitled to the benefit of extension of service beyond the age of 58 years. The necessary decision in this regard be taken within a period of two months from today. Since it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner stands retired, necessary consequences of the fresh decision to be taken by the respondents shall be made available to the petitioner within a period of two months of the taking of the decision. (MAHESH GROVER) November 14, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO C.W.P. No.5103 of 2011 -3-