CHITRANJAN PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is physically handicapped person and was appointed as Clerk on 20.07.1973. Thereafter, he was promoted as Treasury Officer on 27.11.2010 and ultimately, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years on 30.11.2010. The petitioner is claiming the benefit of instructions dated 16.02.1996, whereby, the retirement age of the handicapped person (blind) was raised from 58 years to 60 years. He has submitted a representation for extension of his age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years and not to retire him at the age of 58 years but still his age of retirement was not extended.

(2.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of Circular dated 19.11.2014 (Annexure P-10) issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel, PP-II Branch as the case of the petitioner was covered not only by the instructions but also by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.8107 of 2012 titled as Harbans Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 05.02.2013 .

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same controversy was there in Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.7233 of 2010 decided on 25.05.2011 , which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1719 of 2012 titled as State of Punjab Vs. Bhupinder Singh decided on 25.09.2012 . Said judgment rendered in Bhupinder Singh's case (supra) was also relied upon in many cases like the petitioner and in all these cases, direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case in view of judgment rendered in Bhupinder Singh's case (supra).