Punjab & Haryana HC: Premature Retirement of Disabled Teacher Set Aside, Section 47 of Disabilities Act Mandates Continuance in Service on Supernumerary Post
Case Name: Gopi Ram through his wife Meena Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Date of Judgment: January 14, 2020
Citation: CWP No. 10158 of 2017 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri
Held: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 14.06.2004 prematurely retiring the petitioner, a Science Master, on medical grounds after he suffered head injury and was diagnosed with dementia. It held that under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, an employee acquiring disability during service cannot be retired and must either be adjusted on another post with same pay scale or kept on a supernumerary post till superannuation. The Court rejected the State’s defence of delay and laches, emphasizing that statutory rights under Section 47 override service rules and cannot be defeated by limitation.
Summary: The petitioner, appointed in 1988 and regularized in 1991, met with a road accident in 2002 that left him in coma and permanently incapacitated. Based on a medical report of June 2004, he was retired with invalid pension under Rule 5.11 of Punjab Civil Services Rules. His gratuity was calculated for 15 years of service, though his actual retirement was due in 2024. He challenged this retirement in 2017, claiming entitlement under Section 47 of the 1995 Act. The State opposed on grounds of delay and reliance on service rules permitting retirement after incapacity. The Court relied on Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board (2008), Satbir Singh v. UHBVNL (2007), Santoshi Sondhi v. State of Punjab (2015), and Division Bench rulings in Parvesh Devi v. State of Haryana (2006) and HVPN v. Roshni Devi (2012), all holding that disabled employees must continue in service till superannuation on suitable or supernumerary posts. The Court found the petitioner entitled to salary arrears from June 2004 till superannuation, with 8% interest, subject to adjustment of gratuity already paid.
Decision: The High Court allowed the petition, directing the State to treat the petitioner as continuing in service on a supernumerary post, pay arrears of salary with 8% interest from June 2004 till superannuation, and thereafter compute pension and family pension benefits accordingly.