CWP-8000- IN TH 219 Manohar Sin State of Punja CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. of the Consti the nature o instructions d with regard t rights and fu Rule 33 for e Further prayi instructions d 1 -2024 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date o ar Singh VERSUS f Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocat Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has be Constitution of India for issuance of ture of mandamus directing the res tions dated 19.11.2014 (Annexure P gard to the persons with disability (eq and full participation) Act 1955 (Cen 3 for enhancement of the retirement r praying for granting extension of two tions dated 19.11.2014 (Annexure P NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-8000-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 05, 2026 .....Petitioner SUS ..Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR dvocate for the petitioner. njab. ocate for respondents No.4 to 6. been filed under Article 226/227 ce of an appropriate writ or order in he respondents to comply with the ure P-3) of the Punjab Government ty (equal opportunities, protection of 5 (Central Act. No.1) of 1996 as per ment age from 58 years to 60 years. of two years of service in view of the re P-3) and to allow the petitioner to 2026 itioner ondents /227 der in th the nment ion of as per years. of the ner to PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8000- continue in s case of the (Annexure P passed by S Assistant Ma 2. Sewadar with Clerk in Aug Assistant Ma to the exten (Annexure P dated 30.03.2 of 58 years. 3. has been unj disabled is en Instructions Punjab. Lear petitioner nam in retirement (Annexure P age of 58 ye passed by th 2011(4) SCT 2 -2024 e in service till attaining the age of 6 f the petitioner is squarely covere ure P-3) and in view of order date by Sangrur Central Cooperative B nt Manager. Briefly, the facts are that the with the respondent-Bank on 31.05. in August, 2001, followed by Accou nt Manager in September, 2019. The extent of 60%, as reflected by di ure P-2) issued by the Civil Surgeon, 0.03.2024, the petitioner was retired fr ears. Learned counsel for the petition en unjustly retired at the age of 58 y d is entitled to enhancement of retirem tions dated 19.11.2014 (Annexure P . Learned counsel further submits that namely, Sh. Jasbir Singh was gran ement age from 58 years to 60 year ure P-6), whereas, the petitioner has 58 years i.e. on 30.03.2024. He fur this Court in Bhupinder Singh V SCT 55, which has been upheld in e of 60 years. Lastly, prayed that the covered by above said instructions r dated 01.03.2017 (Annexure P-7) tive Bank in case of Jasbir Singh, t the petitioner was appointed as a 31.05.1991. He was also promoted to Accountant in September, 2014 and . The petitioner is physically disabled disability certificate 08.05.1998 rgeon, Amritsar. Vide impugned order tired from service on attaining the age petitioner contends that the petitioner 8 years. The petitioner being 60% retirement age to 60 years in terms of xure P-3) issued by Government of its that similarly situated employee to s granted the benefit of enhancement 0 years vide order dated 31.01.2017 has been relieved on attaining the He further relies upon the judgment gh Vs. State of Punjab and others eld in LPA-1719-2011, titled as State at the ctions 7) Singh, as a ted to and sabled .1998 order he age tioner % ms of ent of yee to ement .2017 ng the gment hers tate PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8000- of Punjab a 25.09.2012 a No.10610-20 has been fil upholding th from 58 year passed by thi 2016(1) SCT Punjab and view of the continue serv 4. the copy of whereby it h dated 19.11.2 of disabled em 5. that during t taken a speci been extende Central Coop Learned coun Punjab State 3 -2024 ab and others Versus Bhupinder 012 against which Civil Appeal No. 2013) titled as State of Punjab an en filed which was disposed of ing the enhancement of retirement a 8 years to 60 years. Learned counsel f by this Court in Harbhajan Singh V SCT 89 and CWP-30228-2025, R and others, decided on 13.10.2025 f the settled law and admitted fact e service till he attains the age of 60 y Per contra, learned counsel for r py of decision dated 01.07.2024 p y it has been resolved that the Ban 9.11.2014 (Annexure P-3) regarding bled employees from 58 to 60 years. In rebuttal, learned counsel for ring the course of hearing before thi specific stand that the benefit of reti xtended to similarly situated emp l Cooperative Bank, as discernible f d counsel further produced the order State Cooperative Bank, Chandigarh, der Singh and others’ decided on No.8855-2014 (arising out of SLP b and others Vs. Bhupinder Singh d of vide order dated 16.03.2014 ent age of persons with disabilities unsel further relies upon the judgment gh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 25, Rupinder Singh Vs. State of .2025 to support his case. As such, in d facts, the petitioner is entitled to 60 years. el for respondents No.4 to 6 produced 024 passed by Board of Directors, e Bank has not adopted Instructions rding enhancement of retirement age ears. sel for the petitioner further submits ore this Court on 15.10.2024, he has of retiring at the age of 60 years has employees working in the Sangrur nible from Annexures P-6 and P-7. order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the igarh, adopting the Instructions dated ed on f SLP ingh .2014, ilities gment ers, e of ch, in led to duced ctors, ctions nt age bmits e has rs has ngrur 7. by the dated PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8000- 19.11.2014 approved by 6. on record a appropriate p 7. position to c Limited had dated 10.12.2 persons with Person with Participation) 8. through the petitioner su 60% as indic Evidently, th and was mad terms of the Annexure P to continue s the Hon’ble instructions d 4 -2024 14 (Annexure P-3) issued by th ed by the Board of Directors vide Reso Copy of order dated 10.12.2025 ord as mark ‘X’. Registry is direc riate place. Learned counsel for the respec to controvert the fact that the Pu d had adopted the Instructions dated 10.12.2025 (Mark ‘X’), thereby enha s with disabilities from 58 to 60 year with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity pation) Act, 1995 (in short ‘Act of 199 Having heard the learned cou h the case file with their able ass ner suffers from a permanent physic s indicated by disability certificate dat tly, the petitioner joined the service of s made to retire on 30.03.2024 upon of the Punjab State Financial Servic e P-1. However, considering the peti inue service till the age of 60 years in on’ble Supreme Court in Bhupinde tions dated 19.11.2014 (Annexure P- the Government of Punjab, as e Resolution No. 6 dated 13.11.2025. 2.2025 has been ordered to be taken directed to place the same at an respective respondents are not in a the Punjab State Cooperative Bank dated 19.11.2014 by passing order enhancing the age of retirement of 0 years in terms of Section 33 of the rtunity Protection of Rights and Full of 1995’). d counsel for the parties and gone le assistance, it transpires that the physically disability to the extent of ate dated 08.05.1998 (Annexure P-2). vice of respondent-Bank o 31.05.1991 upon attaining the age of 58 years in Service Rules 1958 as indicated in he petitioner’s disability, he is entitled ears in terms of judgment rendered by pinder Singh (supra) as well as -3). b, as 2025. taken at an t in a Bank order ent of the d Full gone at the ent of 2). .1991 ars in ted in ntitled red by ell as PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8000- 9. analysed the of service fro to all categor persons with Instructions d in Bhupinder benefit to per motor disabil 10. with disabili Disabilities legislation w provided to overcoming Pertinently, t statute but st such persons dignity and intention of employees w discernible fr P-3). Therefo that the respo 5 -2024 The Hon’ble Supreme Court ed the provisions of Act of 1995, to ho ice from the age of 58 years to the ag ategories specified in Section 33 of th s with locomotive disabilities. A tions dated 19.11.2014 (Annexure P inder Singh (supra) was correctly im to persons with blindness or low visio disability or cerebral palsy. The constitutional mandate to p isabilities is adequately reflected by lities Act, 2016 and its predecessor tion was put in place to formalize t ed to persons with disabilities an ming societal and psychological i ntly, the rights of persons with disa but stem from the Constitution itself. ersons is in furtherance of a constitu and be provided equal opportunitie on of the State government to exte ees with disabilities from 58 year ible from the Government Instruction herefore, the objection raised by learn e respondent-Bank had not adopted the Court in Bhupinder Singh (supra) , to hold that the benefit of extension the age of 60 years will be applicable 3 of the Act of 1955, which includes s. A perusal of the Government ure P-3) clearly reflects that the dicta ctly implemented by granting the said vision, hearing impairment and loco te to protect the interests of persons ted by the Rights of Persons with cessor the Act of 1955. A special alize the protections intended to be ies and practically assist them in ical impediments, amongst others. h disabilities are not a creation of a itself. Therefore, special treatment to nstitutional promise to live a life of rtunities in all spheres. Further, the o extend the age of retirement for years to 60 years is also clearly ructions dated 19.11.2014 (Annexure y learned counsel for the respondents ted the instructions (Annexure P-3) is pra) ension icable cludes ment dicta e said d loco ersons with pecial to be m in thers. of a ent to life of r, the nt for learly exure dents 3) is PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8000- unsustainable (supra) woul 11. The responde grant extensi till attainmen from the date would be en allowance fr appropriate o terms. 12. disposed of. February 05 P.C 6 -2024 ainable as the constructional mandate would have an overriding effect. In view of the discussion above, spondents/competent authority is direc xtension of two years and to allow th inment of the age of superannuation i e date of receipt of certified copy of th be entitled to the minimum pay scal nce from the date of initial retire riate order is passed by the competent Pending miscellaneous applicat ed of. ary 05, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : ndate supported by Bhupinder Singh above, the present petition is allowed. s directed to pass appropriate order to low the petitioner to continue service ation i.e. 60 years, within four weeks y of this order. Further, the petitioner y scale with grade pay and dearness retirement i.e. 30.03.2024 till the petent authority in the aforementioned pplication(s), if any, shall also stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No ingh owed. der to ervice weeks tioner arness ll the tioned stand RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.13 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document