While granting relief to an employee of the Haryana Roadways who suffered a brain haemorrhage, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that any approach that treats disability as a ground for denial of service protection would undermine human dignity and would erode the very letter and spirit of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The High Court was considering a petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to retain the petitioner in service up to the age of 60 years and grant all service benefits, i.e. salary, allowances, promotion, etc., alongwith all consequential benefits.

The Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil held, “An employee who acquires disability during service deserves empathy, institutional support, and reasonable accommodation, and not suspicion, indifference, or punitive action. The State, being a model employer, is expected to rise above technicalities and to act with compassion, sensitivity, and a sense of moral responsibility by making genuine efforts to adjust such an employee within the department rather than marginalising him or pushing him out of service. Any approach that treats disability as a ground for denial of service protection would undermine human dignity and would erode the very letter and spirit of the Act, 2016.”

Advocate R.N. Lohan represented the Petitioner while Addl. AG. Deepak Balyan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Helper Painter in Haryana Roadways, Depot Jind in 1986 and was regularised in 1995. He was promoted as a painter in 2002, where he continued to be posted. During the course of service, the petitioner suffered a brain haemorrhage and was assessed as 70% disabled by the Medical Board. Owing to his severe disability, the petitioner was unable to perform the duties of the post of Painter and could not walk or stand properly. Relying upon Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Government of Haryana instructions dated January 31, 2006 and July 6, 2018, and judicial precedents, the petitioner claimed entitlement to retention on a supernumerary post with full service benefits.

A legal notice was served upon the respondents, but no action was taken, compelling the petitioner to file the petition, which was disposed of with a direction to decide the legal notice. The petitioner’s claim was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not suffer from permanent disability, relying upon a departmental letter. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued alleging unauthorised absence from duty. Aggrieved by the rejection of his claim, issuance of the chargesheet, and denial of retention on a supernumerary post, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the impugned order and chargesheet and a direction to the respondents to retain him on a supernumerary post.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the petitioner, having suffered a brain haemorrhage, was assessed as 70% disabled as per the disability certificate dated, which is valid till April 29, 2029. The Bench explained that in terms of Section 2 of the Act 2016, a “person with disability” includes a person with long-term physical impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. “The petitioner clearly falls within this definition, as he is unable to perform the duties of his post of Painter, cannot walk or stand properly, and is severely restricted in daily activities”, it stated.

As per the Bench, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to benefits due to the absence of a “permanent” disability certificate did not hold good, as the certificate issued by the competent Medical Board clearly recorded 70% disability. Considering the petitioner’s date of birth, the Bench noted that he would attain the age of 60 years in 2029, which coincides with the validity of the certificate, confirming that he would remain 70% disabled for the entire remaining period of his service. “Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim vide the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 is unsustainable”, it held.

Mentioning that Section 20 mandates that no employee acquiring disability during service shall be removed, reduced in rank, or denied promotion, the Bench held that the petitioner’s disability prevented him from performing his original duties, and he was entitled to accommodation on a supernumerary post with all consequential benefits.

“It must be borne in mind that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is a humane, remedial, and welfare-oriented legislation, enacted with the avowed object of protecting employees who suffer physical or mental misfortune during the course of their service and ensuring that such misfortune does not translate into economic or social exclusion. The petitioner has rendered almost four decades of sincere, diligent, and uninterrupted service to the respondent-department, dedicating the most productive years of his life in the service of the State, and it would be wholly unjust, unfair, and contrary to principles of equity to abandon him at the twilight of his career merely because he has suffered a disability not of his own making”, the order read.

Thus, the Bench quashed the order rejecting the petitioner’s claim, as well as the chargesheet. Allowing the petition, the Bench ordered, “The respondents are directed to retain the petitioner on a supernumerary post, or alternatively adjust him against a suitable post, with the same pay scale, continuity of service, and all consequential service benefits, including salary in terms of Section 20 of the Act, 2016, till he attains the age of superannuation.”

Cause Title: Brij Bhushan v. State of Haryana (Case No.: CWP-31286-2024)

Click here to read/download Order





Punjab & Haryana High CourtJustice Sandeep Moudgil

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.