Punjab and Haryana HC reinstates disabled bank employee retired at 58

Singh, who joined the bank as a peon in 1986, rose through promotions to become a senior manager. In 2007, he suffered a cervical spine injury in an accident, resulting in a 54 per cent permanent physical disability, as certified by Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh. He was promoted as manager in 2015 and later as senior manager under posts reserved for persons with disabilities, with the approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab.

The bank retired him at 58 citing the Common Cadre Rules. Singh argued he was entitled to serve till 60 under government instructions issued on February 19, 2021, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016.

The court noted that the government instructions extended the retirement age for employees with disabilities , including blindness, deafness, locomotor disability, cerebral palsy, and other conditions, from 58 to 60 years.

Justice Brar emphasised that the duty to protect the interests of persons with disabilities is rooted in the Constitution. Citing the Twelfth Schedule, he said it includes “safeguarding the interests of weaker sections of society, including the handicapped and mentally retarded.”

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab and others vs Bhupinder Singh and others, the court held that the benefit of enhanced retirement age applies to all categories recognised under the disabilities law, including locomotor disabilities.

“The rights of persons with disabilities are not a creation of statute but stem from the Constitution itself,” Justice Brar observed. “Special treatment for such persons furthers a constitutional promise to live a life of dignity and to be provided equal opportunities in all spheres.”

He added that the Common Cadre Rules cannot be applied uniformly to regular and disabled employees to the latter’s disadvantage. Even without specific amendments to service rules, he said, “the constitutional philosophy overrides all else.”

Since Singh has over 40 per cent disability, the court held that he qualifies as a “person with benchmark disability” entitled to the benefit of extended service.

It also noted that the bank’s managing director lacked jurisdiction to issue the retirement order, as an amendment making him the appointing and punishing authority had been set aside earlier.

The bank had rejected Singh’s representation on September 1, a day after his retirement, claiming it had not adopted the government instructions or amended service rules. However, the court said the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, had already endorsed the instructions to all apex institutions, and the bank had granted Singh promotions under the disabled category with the Registrar’s approval. “The bank cannot now refuse to follow the law,” Justice Brar said.

The petition was decided without notice to the respondents to save time and litigation costs.