Devinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 21 April, 2023
14. It is evident from reading of clause (b) that there is no
substantive argument. Similar is the position with regard to the argument
under clause (c). Learned senior counsel has failed to draw the attention
of the Court to any provision in the 2016 Act or the Rules framed
thereunder, which entitles the Punjab Government employees suffering
from disabilities to seek extension of service beyond the age of 60 years.
As regards the argument under clause (d), it may be noticed that
discrimination is positive concept and cannot be used to perpetuate
illegalities. It has been laid down that if someone has been wrongly
extended the benefit, it cannot be cited as a precedent for claiming
similar benefit by others. Guarantee of equality before law under the
Article 14 is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative
manner. If any illegality or irregularity is committed in favour of any
individual or group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction
of the Courts for perpetuating the same illegality or irregularity (Ref.
Chandigarh Administration UT vs. Jagdish Singh (1995) 1 and
Union of India vs. M.V.Sarkar SCC 745, (2010) 2 SCC 59)
11 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2023 23:52:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056641
CWP-12524-2022 (O&M)
and other connected cases 12 2023:PHHC:056641