1 RSA-3153-2014 (O&M) 133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3153-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 16, 2026 HAMID MASIH ........Appellant Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. G.S. Bal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Laxman Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Aftab Singh Khare, Sr. DAG, Punjab. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as "the First Appellate Court"), whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") dismissing the suit, was allowed, thus, reversing the judgment of the learned Trial Court. FACTS 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that the plaintiff initially served in the Indian Army from 18.12.1967 till 31.12.1982 and thereafter joined the Punjab Police as a Constable on 21.07.1988. While accompanying a police party during an anti-terrorist TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.28 15:40 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 RSA-3153-2014 (O&M) operation in 1991, he sustained severe eye injuries due to bursting of tear gas shells. Despite treatment, he completely lost vision in both eyes and was certified as 100% blind by the Civil Surgeon. 2.1. It was further pleaded that after attaining the age of 55 years, the plaintiff was prematurely retired from service with effect from 31.08.2004 under the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. According to him, the action was illegal as Punjab Government instructions dated 16.03.1995, read with subsequent clarifications dated 16.02.1996 and 17.01.2001, enhanced the retirement age of blind Government employees from 58 to 60 years, including those who acquired blindness during service. Having failed to obtain relief through representations, he instituted a suit seeking declaration, mandatory injunction and consequential benefits. 3. Upon notice, the respondents/defendant(s) appeared and filed a written statement, taking preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit and absence of cause of action. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff had lost his eyesight due to a brain tumor surgery, and it was disputed that he was present during the terrorist encounter, as claimed by the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that he had been declared medically unfit by the Civil Surgeon and was, therefore, retired at the age of 55 years, and that the Government instructions relied upon by the plaintiff were not applicable in his case. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the order in question is unlawful, illegal and void? TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.28 15:40 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 RSA-3153-2014 (O&M) OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP 2-A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Relief.” 5. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2012 dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred the appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, whereby, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, the appeal of the plaintiff vide the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2013 was allowed, thus, reversing the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. It held that the plaintiff, having acquired blindness during the course of service, was entitled to the protection envisaged under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1995 Act”). Consequently, the plaintiff was held entitled to continue in service till the age of 58 years with all consequential service benefits including pay and allowances. However, the learned First Appellate Court did not grant the plaintiff the benefit of the subsequent Government instructions extending the age of superannuation to 60 years. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. 7. The short grouse raised on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff is that having acquired disability of losing eye-sight during his service, the appellant was entitled for the benefit of retirement age of 60 years TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.28 15:40 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 RSA-3153-2014 (O&M) instead of 58 years as ordered by the learned First Appellate Court. It has also been submitted that the learned First Appellate Court erred having failed to grant the benefit of instructions dated 16.02.1996 and 17.01.2001 issued by the Department of Personnel (Administrative Reform) Personnel Policies Branch, Government of Punjab merely on the ground that the same were not part of the records. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents-defendants submits that the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court was based on proper appreciation of evidence and thus, calls for no interference. DISCUSSION AND REASONING:- 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book and records of the case. 10. The question before this Court is: Whether the appellant-plaintiff, having acquired blindness during the course of his service, is entitled to the enhanced retirement age of 60 years in terms of the Government instructions dated 16.03.1995, 16.02.1996 and 17.01.2001? RE: ADMISSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTIONS 11. A perusal of the record shows that while decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff by relying upon Section 47 of the 1995 Act and setting aside the order dated 27.08.2004 whereby the plaintiff was compulsorily retired with effect from 31.08.2004 upon attaining the age of 55 years on 09.08.2004, the learned First Appellate Court restricted his entitlement to continuation in service to the age of 58 years. The benefit TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.28 15:40 I agree to specified portions of this document 5 RSA-3153-2014 (O&M) of the instructions dated 16.02.1996 and 17.01.2001 was denied to the plaintiff merely on the ground of non-production, without any examination of whether these instructions, if considered, would have entitled him to continue in service till the age of 60 years. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment dated 05.10.2013 passed by the learned First Appellate Court are reproduced hereunder for reference: “13. The import of Section 47 of the Act was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India, 2003(4) SCC 524, and in paragraph 9 of this authority, it was observed that, "it must be remembered that a person does not acquire or suffer disability by choice. An employee, who acquires disability during his service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 of the Act specifically such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would not only suffer himself, but possibly all those who depend on him would also suffer. The very frame and contents of Section 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The Section further provides that if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits, if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post he will be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. 14. In view of the above referred Section 47 of the Act, it is clear that notwithstanding the disability acquired by the appellant, respondents were legally bound to continue him in service till his retirement. Learned Government Pleader has contended that since appellant has not acquired the disability while discharging his official duty, so he could not be allowed to continue the service till his retirement, as a matter of right. However, Government Pleader has failed to refer any law in support of his contention, whereas on the other hand, in Section 47 of the Act (Supra) there is no differences regarding disability having acquired by an employee while discharging his official duty or otherwise. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be protected as TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.28 15:40 I agree to specified portions of this document 6 RSA-3153-2014 (O&M) per the provisions of the aforesaid section. It appears that the respondents were not aware of the aforesaid section while passing the impugned order of pre-mature retirement of the appellant. Therefore, impugned order is illegal and void being contrary to the above referred Act, which protects employees who acquire or suffer disability while in service. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is entitled to continue in service up to 60 years as the retirement age of such employees has been enhanced up to 60 years by the Punjab Government vide instructions contained in letter dated 16.03.1995, is held to be without any merit because no such instructions have been produced on the file. 16. For the foregoing reasons, appeal is accepted with costs, impugned judgment and decree is set aside and a decree of declaration to the effect that order of compulsory retirement of the plaintiff-appellant is illegal, null and void and he is entitled to continue in service till the age of 58 years and he is also entitled to get all service benefits, including pay and allowances and a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants- respondents to withdraw the order of compulsory retirement of the plaintiff and to allow him to continue in service till the age of 58 years and to make payment of all service benefits, including pay and allowances, with interest @ 6 per annum, from the date these benefits have become due to him till its realization, is passed in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and against the respondents- defendants.” 12. As regards admissibility, Government instructions of this nature are executive instructions issued by the State Government in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution, and are addressed to all Heads of Departments for compliance. They are not required to be formally proved as private documents would be; their existence and effect may be judicially noticed once produced, particularly where, as applicable in the present case, the defendants have not TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.28 15:40 I agree to specified portions of this document 7 RSA-3153-2014 (O&M) disputed the authenticity or existence of the instructions but have only questioned their applicability to the plaintiff's case. In a case concerning public employment, it does not lie in the mouth of the employer- department to contend that instructions on the strength of which an employee claims relief were not exhibited in evidence, when compliance with such instructions was, in the first place, the department's own obligation. Therefore, the learned First Appellate Court's refusal to extend the benefit of the 1995 instructions solely on the ground of non- production therefore cannot be held to be sound in law. Procedure is the handmaiden of justice and a hyper-technical objection of this nature cannot be allowed to defeat a substantive benefit otherwise flowing to the plaintiff under the Government instructions issued in aid of the beneficial scheme of the 1995 Act. RE: APPLICABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTIONS 13. To effectively adjudicate upon the issue, the relevant portions of the Instructions dated 16.02.1996 and 17.01.2001 are extracted hereunder for reference: Instructions dated 16.02.1996 "Now the question has arisen as to whether this benefit is available only in the case of blind employees who were blind at the time of recruitment or became blind during the service, later. The Government has considered this matter and it is clarified that the benefit of retirement age of 60 years is available in all the cases irrespective of the fact that the employee was blind at the time of recruitment or the employee became blind during the service later, become blind during, the service later. Making distinction between the two sets of employees for the purpose of grant of benefit of age of 60 years is not legally tenable. Further the employees, who become/became blind during the service later, may not be discharged from the service but they may be adjusted against suitable posts by taking action under Rule 5.12 of the Punjab C.S.R. Vol. I." TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.28 15:40 I agree to specified portions of this document 8 RSA-3153-2014 (O&M) Instructions dated 17.01.2001 "The Government has reconsidered the matter in view of the demand of Blind Government Employees and it has been decided that for all Blind Government Employees, there should be no medical check-up after the age of 58 years. However, where Blind Government Employee is adjudged mentally or physically un-suitable for performing the duties of the post being held by him only he may be referred for medical checkup. Heads of Departments/Heads of offices should ensure this personally." 14. A perusal of the instructions extracted above shows that there exists no room for the distinction drawn by the defendants between employees who were blind at the time of recruitment and those, like the plaintiff, who became blind during the course of service. The instructions dated 16.02.1996 expressly clarify that the benefit of the enhanced retirement age of 60 years is available "irrespective of the fact that the employee was blind at the time of recruitment or the employee became blind during the service later," and that any such distinction "is not legally tenable." As is evident, what matters under the instructions is not how or when blindness was acquired, but only that the employee was in service, a condition squarely met by the plaintiff, since he lost his vision in 1991 while still in service. 14.1. Furthermore, the instructions dated 17.01.2001 clarify that a blind Government employee is not to be subjected to any further medical check-up after the age of 58 years unless he is separately found "mentally or physically unsuitable" for his post that is, unsuitable for some reason other than blindness itself, which is the very condition the instructions are designed to accommodate. The argument of the defendants that the plaintiff was rightly retired at 55 years because he had been certified blind by the Civil Surgeon, therefore, does not help their case at all. Blindness cannot simultaneously be the qualifying TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.28 15:40 I agree to specified portions of this document 9 RSA-3153-2014 (O&M) condition for the benefit and the disqualifying condition denying it. There is no finding that the plaintiff was unfit for his post, or for adjustment under Rule 5.12 of the Punjab C.S.R. Vol. I, on any ground apart from his blindness. There was, therefore, no lawful basis to deny him continuation in service till the age of 60 years. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, judgment dated 05.10.2013 passed by learned First Appellate Court is modified to the extent that the appellant-plaintiff is granted the benefit of retirement to 60 years instead of 58 years and the respondents are directed to make payment of all service benefits including pay, allowances as well as the revised retiral benefits along with interest @ 6% from the date they became due to plaintiff till its realization. 16. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of. 17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 16.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.28 15:40 I agree to specified portions of this document