CWP-6519- IN TH 212 Paramjit Sing State of Punja CORAM: H Present : AMAN CHA 1. dated 27.01.2 been treated entitlements employees. 2. 2001 advertis category for disability of selected as a hired as Peo employees, w which was c -2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGARH CWP Date o it Singh and others Versus f Punjab and another M: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMA Mr. Jaspal Singh Pannu, Advoca Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, P ***** CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Prayer made in the present petit 7.01.2017 (Annexure P-1), qua the pe eated as fresh incumbents, resulting i ents and discriminatory treatment a The Village Development and dvertised 51 positions, later expanding ry for physically challenged individua ity of 40% or more, applied for the d as a Veterinary Pharmacist, while P as Peons. However, on 02.08.2002, ees, were terminated without being was contested by filing CWP-1378 -1- UNJAB & HARYANA AT GARH CWP-6519-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.01.2025 ...Petitioners ...Respondents AMAN CHAUDHARY dvocate, for the petitioners. AG, Punjab. tition is for quashing the order the petitioners, whereby they have lting in the denial of their rightful ment as against similarly situated nt and Panchayat Department in anding them to 108 in the reserved ividuals. The petitioners, all with a r these roles. Petitioner No. 1 was hile Petitioners No. 2 and 3 were 2002, they, along with 105 other being issued a show cause notice, 13783-2002 and the same was PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.14 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-6519- allowed by direction to authority to CWP-13747 authority was of petitioner permanent di application f Petitioner No of the Gov petitioner No heard. Relev below: -2017 d by the Division Bench vide orde on to reinstate them, but liberty wa ity to take fresh action. This was ag 3747-2010, decided on 26.08.2011, ity was directed to constitute a medica itioner No. 1 and in case, he was ent disability on the cut-off date pres tion form, his claim was to be con ner No. 2 was allowed the liberty to es Government Policy before the C ner No. 3 was given an appointment Relevant paras of the order passed o “19) The so-called irr respondents would not r vitiated by fraud, ext inconsistent with the man & 16 of the Constitution above do not go to the liable to be overlooked services of the petitioner class for whom the Auth compassion, ought not t these small 'pretexts' (20) For the reasons afor allowed and the order da (Annexure P2 ) is hereby (s) are ordered to be re consequential benefits. CWP No. 13747 Of 2010 The petitioner, in this cas the certificate of perman private doctor. Counsel fo subsequently a certificat -2- e order dated 15.03.2004, with a rty was granted to the competent was again made subject matter of .2011, vide which the competent edical board for fresh examination was found to be suffering from te prescribed for submission of the e considered sympathetically and y to establish his eligibility in terms the Competent Authority, while tment letter before the matter was ssed on 26.08.2011 are reproduced d irregularities noticed by the not render the selection process , extraneous considerations or e mandate contained in Articles 14 titution. The irregularities noticed o the root of the matter and were oked being trivial in nature. The itioner (s) belonging to a 'special' e Authorities need to have special not to have been terminated on s afore-stated, the writ petition is der dated 25.02. 2010/04.03. 2010 hereby quashed and the petitioner be re-instated in service with all f 2010 (0&M) is case, is said to have relied upon permanent disability' issued by a nsel for the petitioner submits that rtificate duly issued by the Civil PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.14 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-6519- 3. paragraphs 2 were issued CWP-20584 paras whereo -2017 Surgeon was submitted w it may, this writ petition is that the competent author to a fresh examination be it is satisfied that the p suffering from a permane date prescribed for submis shall consider the c sympathetically in the lig hereinabove. CWP No. 13747 of 2010 i CWP No. 14726 of 2010 ( At the outset, learned Sta nature of permanent disa the writ- petitioners has be and as such they are not e reservation meant for ph The writ petition is acco with, liberty to the pe eligibility in terms of the the competent authority, if With liberty afore-stated stands dismissed.” In deference to the aforesaid aphs 2, 3, and 4 of the written stateme issued appointment letters albeit afre 0584-2015, which came to be dispose hereof read thus: “Notice of motion was i the course of proceedings Rural Development and P filed in Court. A perusal reveal that fresh orders ha the appointment letters i read as “It is also clarifie is being given to you afr and connection with an Therefore, any arrear/seni -3- tted with the Authorities. Be that as ition is disposed of with a direction authority may subject the petitioner ion before a Medical Board, and if the petitioner had actually been ermanent disability on the cut- off submission of the application form, the claim of the petitioner the light of the observations made 2010 is accordingly disposed of. 2010 (0&M) ed State counsel points out that the nt disability allegedly suffered by has been assessed to less than 40% e not entitled to claim the benefit of for physically-challenged persons. s accordingly dismissed, however, he petitioners to establish their of the Government Policy before rity, if so advised. stated, CWP No. 14726 of 2010 resaid, and as acknowledged in tatement, the petitioners and others afresh, leading to filing of isposed of on 28.02.2017, relevant was issued and eventually during edings, an affidavit of the Director, t and Panchayats, Punjab has been erusal of the said affidavit would ers have been passed and Para-4 of tters issued on 20.10.2011 which larified that this appointment letter ou afresh and this has no concern ith any previous service period. ar/seniority claim of the any period PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.14 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-6519- 4. 27.01.2017 w to their appo inasmuch as, previous lis as a matter of by virtue of primarily bei insignificance have to relate -2017 will not be made by you again reinstated into s removing you from the present existing rules/in benefits will be payable removing you from the into service”, may be read In view of the fact tha reinstate them in service f removed as per the affi decided that appropriate from date of removing u writ petition is rendered twelve petitioners. Three been given the relief as liberty to challenge the which relief has been deni However, while disposin made clear that the con benefits would be release period of three months fro order. With the above directio stands allowed, according No order as to costs.” The petitioners are here to cha 017 which noticeably does not reveal r appointments on fresh basis, whic ch as, once it was on the basis of the lis that they came to be examined b atter of fact, found them to be having d tue of which the objection regardin ily being obtained from private prac ficance, rather stood re-affirmed. The relate back to initial date, as was do -4- y you” in place thereof, “ you are into services from the date of the services. According to the ules/instructions, the appropriate ayable to you from the date of the service, up to again joining e read over. ct that the State has decided to rvice from the date when they were e affidavit filed and it has been priate benefits would be payable ving upto the date of joining, this dered infructuous qua nine of the Three petitioners, who have not ief as sought by them, are given e the order dated 27.01.2017 by n denied. isposing of this writ petition, it is e consequential relief/appropriate released to the petitioners within a ths from the date of passing of this irection, the instant writ petition ordingly. to challenge the said order dated reveal any reason for giving effect , which is even otherwise, flawed of the direction of this Court in the ined by the medical board, which, ving disability to the extent of 40% egarding the previous certificates e practitioners not only paled into d. The appointment as such would as done with regard to the others, PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.14 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-6519- ergo the trea E.P.Royappa eloquently he and 16 of th discriminatio arbitrariness. 5. thereof, the p the same ben 07.01.2025 parveen kumar (1974) 4 SC -2017 e treatment meted out to them is in yappa vs. State of T.N.1, wherein ntly held that the basic principle whi of the Constitution of India is equ ination. From a positivistic point of v riness. On a conspectus evaluation of , the present petition is allowed. The p e benefits as granted to the others. kumar Whether speaking/reasoned : Ye Whether reportable : Ye 4) 4 SCC 3 -5- incognizable being in teeth of erein Hon’ble the Supreme Court le which informs both Articles 14 is equality and inhibition against int of view, equality is antithetic to ion of the matter and as a fallout . The petitioners are held entitled to (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE d : Yes / No : Yes / No Y) PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.14 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.