Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 13 October, 2025
CWP-30228-2025 -1-
124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-30228-2025
Date of decision: 13.10.2025
Rupinder Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned retirement order dated 30.08.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Managing Director of respondent No.3-Punjab State Co- operative Bank.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon with the respondent-Bank on 30.04.1986. He was also promoted to Junior Clerk followed by Senior Clerk, Accountant and Assistant Manager. The petitioner met with an accident in the year 2007 and acquired a disability to the extent of 54%, as reflected by certificate dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Government College and Hospital, Chandigarh. Vide Endorsement dated 31.10.2015, he was promoted to the post of Manager under against posts reserved for persons with disability, with the approval of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab followed by a promotion as Senior Manager. Vide impugned 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 12:04:26 ::: CWP-30228-2025 -2- order dated 30.08.2025, the petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been unjustly retired at the age of 58 years. The petitioner being 54% disabled is entitled to enhancement of retirement age to 60 years in terms of Government Instructions dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-5) issued in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Bhupinder Singh and others in Civil Appeal No.8855 of 2013 (Arising from SLP No.10610 of 2013) as well as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter 'RPWD Act'). Moreover, the petitioner submitted a representation 03 months prior to the date of his retirement submitting that his age of superannuation should be 60 years in view of the Government Instructions dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-5) and the RPWD Act and not 58 years as mentioned in the Common Cadre Rules.
4. He further submits that as per Rule 1.4 of the Common Cadre Rules the appointing and punishing authority would be the Administrative Committee. Subsequently, an amendment was made and the Managing Director was made the appointing and punishing authority. However, the said amendment was set aside by this Court in CWP-23280-2024. As such, the Managing Director does not possess the jurisdiction to pass the impugned retirement order in the first place. Furthermore, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Additional Managing Director by issuing an order dated 01.09.2025 after the retirement of the petitioner on 31.08.2025 holding that his representation cannot be considered as the respondent-Bank has neither adopted the Government Instructions dated 19.11.2014 nor have the applicable Service 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 12:04:27 ::: CWP-30228-2025 -3- Rules been amended to grant relaxation in age of superannuation. However, the RCS has especially endorsed the instructions issued by the government in this regard to all Apex Institutions. As a matter of fact, the petitioner also received promotions under the disabled category with the approval of the RCS and therefore, the respondent-Bank cannot now refuse to follow the provisions of the RPWD Act.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is being decided in limine to save precious judicial time of this cost and also litigation cost to the parties opposite.
6. The controversy at hand calls for a study of the relevant provisions of the RPWD Act as well as the Government Instructions, which are reproduced below:
The RPWD Act
34. Reservation.--
(1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent. for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:--
(a) blindness and low vision;
(b) deaf and hard of hearing;
(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;
(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities:
3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 12:04:27 ::: CWP-30228-2025 -4- Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time:
Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section.
(2) Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability:
Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government.
(3) The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide for such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disability, as it thinks fit.
102. Repeal and savings.--
(1) The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996) is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the said Act, anything done or any action taken under the said Act, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.
Government Instructions dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-5) "Subject:- Regarding increase of retirement age of disabled persons from 58 to 60 years under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation), Act, 1995 (Central Act No. 1 of 1996).
4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 12:04:27 ::: CWP-30228-2025 -5- Sir/Shrimati Ji, I have been directed to invite the attention towards the instructions issued by the Government vide No. 17/20/2010-2PP2/132 dated 19.11.2014 vide which in view of decision in Civil Appeal No. 8855 of 2013 decided on 16.09.2014, benefit has been given in age from 58 to 60 years to all the handicap employees like the blind employees under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Central Act No. 1 of 1996); by superseding these instructions, it has been decided that after coming into force of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, keeping in view the provisions made in Section 34, the officers/employees falling in the following categories:-
6. Blindness and Low vision:
7. Deaf and Hard of hearing;
8. Locomotor Disability including Cerebral palsy, Leprosy cured. Dwarfism, Acid attack victims and Muscular dystrophy;
9. autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;
10.multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities:
are entitled to the benefit in retirement age from 58 to 60 years.
2. This amendment shall be applicable from the date of issue of these instructions.
3. It should be ensured to follow these instructions in letter and spirit."
7. The duty to ensure well being of persons with disabilities finds mention in the Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution of India, which was added by the 74th Amendment Act, 1992, with respect to Article 243W.
"Twelfth Schedule
9. Safeguarding the interests of weaker sections of society, including the handicapped and mentally retarded."
In that vein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhupinder Singh (supra) analysed the provisions of Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter 'Act of 1955'), the predecessor of the RPWD Act, to hold that the benefit of extension of service from the age of 58 years to the age of 60 years 5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 12:04:27 ::: CWP-30228-2025 -6- will be applicable to all categories specified in Section 33 of the Act of 1955, which includes persons with locomotive disabilities. A perusal of the Government Instructions dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-5) clearly reflects that the dicta in Bhupinder Singh (supra) was extended to the disabilities highlighted under Section 34 of the RPWD Act.
8. The constitutional mandate to protect the interests of persons with disabilities is adequately reflected by the RPWD Act and its predecessor the Act of 1955. A special legislation was put in place to formalize the protections intended to be provided to persons with disabilities and practically assist them in overcoming societal and psychological impediments, amongst others. Pertinently, the rights of persons with disabilities are not a creation of a statute but stem from the Constitution itself. Therefore, special treatment to such persons is in furtherance of a constitutional promise to live a life of dignity and be provided equal opportunities in all spheres. In this context, this Court cannot appreciate that the age relaxation could not be granted to the petitioner in view of the Common Cadre Rules, as they cannot be applied uniformly to regular employees and employees with disabilities, to the disadvantage of the latter. Further, the intention of the State government to extend the age of retirement for employees with disabilities from 58 years to 60 years is also clearly discernible from the Government Instructions dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-5) as it has been specifically stated that these instructions be followed 'in letter and spirit.' Therefore, even in absence of specific Rules or amendments to the existing Rules in this regard, the protections promised by the RPWD will prevail as the constitutional philosophy overrides all else. Inspiration in this regard can also be drawn from the judgment rendered by a two-Judge bench of 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 12:04:27 ::: CWP-30228-2025 -7- the Hon'ble Supreme Court Shalini Dharmani vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2024 SCC OnLine SC 653, where a mother was granted Child Care Leave even though no such provisions existed in this regard in the applicable Service Rules in view of the special care needed by her disabled child. The relevant observations are reproduced below:
"7. The participation of women in the work force is not a matter of privilege, but a constitutional entitlement protected by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution; besides Article 19(1)(g). The State as a model employer cannot be oblivious to the special concerns which arise in the case of women who are part of the work force. The provision of Child Care Leave to women subserves the significant constitutional object of ensuring that women are not deprived of their due participation as members of the work force. Otherwise, in the absence of a provision for the grant of Child Care Leave, a mother may well be constrained to leave the work force. This consideration applies a fortiori in the case of a mother who has a child with special needs. Such a case is exemplified in the case of the petitioner herself. We are conscious of the fact that the petition does trench on certain aspects of policy. Equally, the policies of the State have to be consistent and must be synchronise with constitutional protections and safeguards.
8. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the State of Himachal Pradesh must be directed to reconsider the entire aspect of the grant of Child Care Leave to mothers, including making special provisions consistent with the objects and purpose of the RPWD Act to mothers who are bringing up children with special needs."
(emphasis added)
9. Admittedly, the petitioner met with an accident in the year 2007 and a perusal of the disability certificate (Annexure P-2) indicates that he sustained a cervical spine injury, causing him to acquire a permanent physical disability to the extent of 54%. As such, he is eligible to seek benefit of the RPWD Act as he falls under the definition of 'person with benchmark disability' as provided under Section 2(r) in addition to the Government Instructions (Annexure P-5) in terms of Bhupinder Singh (supra).
7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 12:04:27 ::: CWP-30228-2025 -8-
10. In view of the discussion above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned retirement order dated 30.08.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Managing Director of respondent No.3-Punjab State Co- operative Bank is hereby set aside. The competent authority is directed to pass appropriate order to allow the petitioner to continue service till attainment of the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
13.10.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 12:04:27 :::