Persons with multiple disabilities entitled to extension in service: HC

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 10

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that persons with multiple disabilities were entitled to extension in service tenure from 58 to 60.

The ruling by Justice Pankaj Jain came in a case where Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corporation along with another respondent claimed that the petitioner was suffering from multiple disabilities. But the relevant rule contemplated “any one of the disabilities and not multiple disabilities”.

Justice Jain’s Bench was told that the petitioner’s claim was not covered either under Rule 3.27 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, 1970, or a circular dated November 19, 2014. As such, the petitioner could not be granted extended service tenure.

What Rules say

To interpret Rule 3.27 of Rules 1970 in the manner that the term ‘disability’ shall have the meaning as defined in 1995 Act even though the same stands repealed would be interpreting the law as a dead being. —Justice Pankaj Jain, High Court

The Bench was further told that the right to extension in service had nothing to do with the central enactment as it was from Rule 3.27 of 1970 rules/circular. The petitioner’s claim could not be accepted till the circular was amended to include multiple disabilities.

Appearing before Justice Jain’s Bench, senior advocate Pawan Kumar with counsel Surya Kumar and Vidushi Kumar submitted that petitioner Prem Nath was to retire on February 29. But he was required to be allowed to continue in service up to 60 years on the strength of Rule 3.27 and the circular dated November 19, 2014, issued by the state of Punjab.

Justice Jain asserted the question before the court was whether disabilities as contemplated under Rule 3.27 would be limited only to disabilities defined under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act), 1995, or would include multiple disabilities recognised under the substituted Act of 2016.

Justice Jain concluded that there was no reason for the respondents to deny the petitioner’s claim for extension once he was held to be a person with “benchmark disability”.