LPA No. 1530 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1530 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 25, 2011 Om Parkash …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Behl, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 21.07.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant did not qualify for extension of his service upto the age of 60 years in terms of Government instructions dated 28.03.2006 and 21.04.2008 (P-5 and P-6), which provide for the enhanced age of retirement in respect of physically handicapped employees provided they suffer disability to the extent of 70% or above. The learned Single Judge has refused to extend the benefit concerning age of retirement of the appellant on the ground that the Medical Board of PGIMS Rohtak, has found that the appellant suffered disability to the extent of 40% only and he would not qualify for the benefits. According to the instructions LPA No. 1530 of 2011 -2- dated 21.04.2008 (P-6), the competent authority perscribed for issuance of medical certificate to the handicapped employee is the Medical Board of PGIMS Rohtak. Para 2 of the aforesaid instructions reads as under: “2. The matter has been reconsidered by the State Government and it has been decided that for the purpose of giving extension beyond 58 years in the case of physically disabled employees, the Medical Board of P.G.I.M.S. Rohtak shall be designated as the Medical Board for the State and its Director shall personally head the said Board. Accordingly, all such cases where extension in service beyond the age of 58 years is sought on the grounds of physical disability, be referred to the said Board for the issue of Medical Certificate of disability to the such employees. However, on receipt of the medical report from the Board, the Competent Authority shall take a decision to grant or not to grant the extension in service to such physically disabled employees.” (emphasis added) 2. The claim made by the appellant is that another authority has assessed his disability to the extent of 75%. The aforesaid argument has been rejected because under the instructions it is only Medical Board of PGIMS Rohtak, which is competent to opine. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some LPA No. 1530 of 2011 -3- length. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances noticed in the preceding paras, it is not possible to find any fault in the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge. Once the competent authority under the instructions has found that the disability of the appellant is 40% then he would not be qualified for extension in his age of retirement. Therefore, the appeal is wholly without merit and does not warrant admission. 5. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE August 25, 2011 Atul