JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J.: (Oral) - By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order retiring him from service at the age of 58. On the instructions of the petitioner, the second challenge with regard to denial of conveyance allowance is not being pressed by the learned counsel. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner suffered a failed eye operation in the right eye during his service as a result of which his vision in the right eye was lost. Undisputedly the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Pandit Bhagwati Dayal Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak have quantified the visual disability of the petitioner at 75%. The precise grouse of the leaned counsel is that he should be allowed to continue till the age of 60 in view of the letter Annexure P-25 addressed by the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana to the heads of different departments in the State of Haryana. Those instructions read as follows:- “I am directed to invite your attention to rule 3.26(a) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume-I, Part-I,which inter alia provided for the age of superannuation of Haryana Government Employees as 58 years except in the case of Judicial Officers, Group IV and Blind Employees in whose case such age has been prescribed as 60 years. With a view to maintaining uniformity in the matter of retirement age in respect of Handicapped employees, the Government on further consideration of the matter, has decided to raise the normal retirement age of such disabled Group ‘A’ to Group ‘D’ employes who possess the minimum degree o disability of 70% from 58 years to 60 years. ...........” 3. During arguments the stand taken is that the quantification of 70% disability would not apply to blind persons and, for any benefit to be given to blind persons it would be necessary that such persons should be 100% blind. 4. The second argument is that the applicability of instructions Annexure P-25 to employees of the respondent-bank have been restricted by the Government only to handicapped persons and not to blind persons. 5. In my opinion both the arguments sought to be raised on behalf of the respondent-bank have to be rejected. 4. The second argument is that the applicability of instructions Annexure P-25 to employees of the respondent-bank have been restricted by the Government only to handicapped persons and not to blind persons. 5. In my opinion both the arguments sought to be raised on behalf of the respondent-bank have to be rejected. Document Annexure P-25 clearly envisages maintenance of uniform parameters for the grant of benefit to the handicapped persons and there is no indication that a blind person will not be taken as a physically handicapped person. Once it is held that document Annexure P-25 would extend to people who are suffering from visual disability also then the fact that the Government restricted it only to physically handicapped persons(for the respondent-bank) would not mean that person with visual disability would be excluded from the definition of handicapped persons. 6. In the circumstances the petition is allowed. The impugned order retiring the petitioner is quashed. It is directed that he would continue in service till the age of 60 and is held entitled to all consequential benefits. 7. Since the main case has been decided, the Civil Misc.Application, if any, also stands disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ———————