- (1.) The petitioner initially entered appointment in the service of PWD B&R National Highway Patiala as a Driver on 1.8.1974. While in service he met with an accident and suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70%. In October 1992 he was appointed as Road Inspector and promoted as Junior Engineer in May 2005. He superannuated from the service upon attaining the prescribed age. He now presses for his claim for retention in service beyond the age of superannuation in terms of the policy of the government which enables him to such a benefit subject, however, to the conditions envisaged in the policy itself. The petitioner places reliance on the decisions rendered by this Court in CWP No. 7233 of 2010 and LPA No. 1719 of 2011. The answer to this writ petition was kept in abeyance on account of the pendency of Special Leave Petition where the decision rendered by this Court was being tested before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The same stands answered now and it would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-- "The aforesaid issue has been answered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the affirmative. We fully endorse the aforesaid determination rendered by the High Court, and also affirm the reasons recorded in arriving at the aforesaid determination. All the same, we would record our restriction/limitation to the determination rendered by the High Court. On the issue of employment, the Disabilities Act contemplates reservation through Section 33 for three types of disabilities. Firstly, persons suffering from blindness or low vision. Secondly, persons suffering from hearing impairment. And thirdly, persons suffering from locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. For equal opportunity and protection of rights in employment, only the above three categories of disabilities have been recognised by the Disabilities Act. On a reference to the provisions of the Disabilities Act, therefore, equality is sustainable only in respect of the three categories specified in Section 33 of the Disabilities Act. In fact, learned counsel for the respondents also endorse the above position. In order to dissuade this Court from accepting the reasoning expressed in the impugned orders, learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention to a decision rendered by this Court in Union of India v. Devendra Kumar Pant and others, 2009 14 SCC 546. The question that arose for consideration in the aforesaid judgment pertains to promotion. That is not the case here. The benefit granted by the High Court pertains to the respective employment in which a disabled employee has been engaged. In that view of the matter, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Our above view is based on the fact, that the issue of discrimination adjudicated upon by the High Court, relates to employees who were already engaged in government service. There is no dispute about their ability to discharge their duties, against the posts on which they were employed. The benefit if extended to the categories of disabilities for which reservation in employment has been contemplated under the Disabilities Act would not cause any administrative inconvenience to the appellants. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeals are disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs." Keeping in view the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for retention in service and take a decision in view of what has been extracted above as expeditiously as possible but not later than three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.;