CWP No.16179 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16179 of 2007 Decided on : 03.03.2009 Balbir Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS UHBVNL and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY TEWARI J. The dispute in this case is with regard to the retention of the petitioner in service upto the age of 60 on the ground of disability. The only defense put up is that the disability certificates produced by the petitioner from different Medical Boards are discrepant. In the circumstances, in my opinion it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is subjected to medical examination at PGIMER, Chandigarh and the result thereof would determine the eligibility of the petitioner to be retained in service upto the age of 60. The Medical Superintendent, PGIMER, Chandigarh is directed to form a Board of competent Doctors to assess the disability of the petitioner. The petitioner will serve a copy of this order on the Medical Superintendent, PGIMER within the period of two weeks after receiving a certified copy and the Medical Superintendent, PGIMER would do the needful within a period of one month thereafter. In case, the PGIMER, Chandigarh certifies the CWP No.16179 of 2007 -2- disability of the petitioner to be more than the required level then the respondents are directed to permit him to continue in service till the age of 60 and give him all consequential benefits. However, he will not be entitled for any wages for the period during which he did not work. Since the relief substantially relates to retiral benefits, the respondents would be liable to fix his increased retiral benefits and pay the arrears thereof within a period of two months of the receipt of the report from the PGIMER, Chandigarh. In case, as mentioned above the petitioner is found to be entitled to continue till the age of 60, the said arrears would be paid to the petitioner with 8% interest. It is further clarified that the order (Annexure P-22) shall not stand in the way of the respondents in case the report is in favour of the petitioner. Disposed off. March 03, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI ) ashish JUDGE