DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Can't discriminate among employees granted extension in service: HC

  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, March 7

Advertisement

Taking note of the setting aside of a policy similar to the existing one fixing minimum degree of disability at 70 per cent for extension in service, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted the benefit of extension to an employee after making it clear that he could not be discriminated against.

Arbitrary policy

  • The petitioner’s contention was that fixing minimum degree of disability at 70 per cent in amended Rule 143 was arbitrary
  • The provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, fixed 40 per cent disability as the benchmark.
  • The petitioner argued similar policy prescribing minimum degree of disability at 70 per cent had been held illegal before being set aside

The Bench of Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur made it clear that an employee had been granted extension on the basis of the judgment in the previous case. Denying the same benefit to the petitioner-employee would amount to discrimination.

Advertisement

In its detailed order, the Bench observed an “important issue” regarding the interpretation of amended Rule 143 of the Haryana Civil Services General Rules, 2016, had been raised in the matter. The rule made it clear that certain benefits were conferred on “disabled persons/differently able persons, blind employees, Group-D employees and judicial officers. They could be given a two-year extension beyond the age of superannuation.

Appearing before the Bench, the petitioner’s counsel contended that fixing minimum degree of disability at 70 per cent in the amended Rule 143 for the differently able persons to get the benefit was arbitrary. Elaborating, he contended the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, fixed 40 per cent disability as the benchmark.

The Bench was also told that similar provision contained in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995) was considered by a single judge of the High Court in the case of “Hardev Kaur versus the State of Haryana and others”.

It was held in the case that a similar policy of the state government prescribing minimum degree of disability at 70 per cent had been held illegal and was set aside. It was also brought to the Bench’s notice that an appeal filed against the order was disposed of on October 30, 2019, on the ground that the respondent-writ petitioner was given the extension and the appeal was dismissed as infructuous leaving open the legal question.

“We are of the considered view, prima facie that if the policy similar to that contained in the amended Rule 143 had been previously set aside by this court in Hardev Kaur’s case, and the state had acquiesced in it and granted extension to Hardev Kaur in that case, it would amount to discrimination if the petitioner in the instant case was denied the said benefit,” the Bench asserted.

Before parting with the order, the Bench directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue performing his duties until further orders. The case will now come up for further hearing in the third week of May.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts