Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that a petitioner who acquired benchmark disability during service was entitled to the same benefits as those who had disability at the time of entry into service. The court directed that the petitioner, who was retired at 58 years without the benefit of enhanced retirement age for persons with disabilities, be treated as having continued in service until the age of 60. The court further ordered the grant of all monetary and consequential pensionary benefits for the two-year period during which the petitioner was prevented from serving.

The petitioner was appointed as Ayurvedic Medical Officer in the respondents’ department on 6 March 1982 and was later promoted to District Ayurvedic Officer. On 24 November 2001, while still in service, the petitioner acquired 51% permanent locomotor disability. This was certified by the Medical Board at District Hospital Dharamshala. The disability was not disputed by the respondents.

Also Read: “A Society Engaged in Charitable Work Holds the Character of a Constructive Trust”: Supreme Court Says Registration Under Societies Act Doesn’t Diminish Public Trust Nature

At the relevant time, the Government of Himachal Pradesh issued an Office Memorandum dated 29 March 2013 enhancing the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years in respect of blind government employees. This memorandum was challenged before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in Krishan Chand vs State of H.P. The tribunal allowed the petition, holding that the benefit of enhanced retirement age should also extend to other categories of physical disabilities recognized under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Subsequent litigation, including State of H.P. vs Krishan Chand, upheld this extension. Ultimately, the Supreme Court also declined to interfere.

The respondents in the present case contended that the petitioner was neither appointed under the handicapped quota nor was disabled at the time of joining service, and therefore was ineligible for the benefit of the 29 March 2013 OM. They relied on the fact that the OM was later withdrawn on 4 November 2019, and that fixation of retirement age is within the State Government’s domain.

The petitioner argued that when he attained the age of 58 years on 31 May 2015, the OM was in force and entitled him to continue in service until 60 years of age. He cited decisions such as Janmej Singh vs State of H.P., where the court held that denial of such benefit while the OM was in force entitled the employee to full wages until the withdrawal date. He also relied on Balbir Singh vs State of H.P., where a similar principle was applied.

The court noted that disability as defined under Section 2(i) of the 1995 Act includes locomotor disability and that a person with 40% or more of such disability is considered a person with disability. The petitioner, with 51% permanent disability, met this benchmark.

It recorded: "Petitioner, who acquired permanent disability during service cannot be discriminated vis-à-vis others whose disabilities existed at the time of entry into service, for the purpose of applying Office Memorandum dated 29.03.2013 extending the retirement age for physically disabled persons."

The court stated: "In matter of extension of retiral age up-to the age of 60 years under Office Memorandum dated 29.03.2013, no distinction could be made out between the persons, who suffered from disability prior to or acquired it after joining the service."

The court cited Section 47 of the 1995 Act, which provides that no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires disability during service. The provision allows shifting to another post or keeping the employee on a supernumerary post until superannuation.

Referring to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the court recorded: "No Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service… Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier."

The court further observed: "The disability will not cease to be disability just because person suffered it during service and not prior to the appointment." It held that the only relevant consideration for applying the OM was whether the person was suffering from a benchmark disability.

Also Read: Bombay HC Says Delay In Deciding Reference No Ground To Deny Relief | Orders Reinstatement Of Workers Terminated In 1995 With Compensation For Superannuated Or Deceased

The court examined earlier judgments, including Bhupinder Singh vs State of Punjab, where benefits were granted to an employee who suffered disability in service, and Mahender Singh vs State of H.P., where a similar benefit was extended. It also referred to the Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs Leesamma Joseph, which recognized the legislative intent of providing equal opportunity for career progression to persons with disabilities.

The court allowed the writ petition. It held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the OM dated 29 March 2013 and that he should have been permitted to continue in service until 31 May 2017. It ordered: "Petitioner shall be treated to have retired from service on 31.05.2017. He shall be entitled to all monetary benefits for the said period with consequential effect upon his pension etc. This exercise be carried out within a period of five weeks."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

Case Title: Dr. Daljit Singh vs State of H.P. & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:25063

Case Number: CWP No. 3374/2024

Bench: Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua