Safiya Malik

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil has set aside Haryana’s refusal to accommodate a Haryana Roadways employee who suffered a brain haemorrhage during service and was certified with 70% disability. The Court quashed the rejection order and the consequential charge-sheet alleging unauthorised absence and directed the State to adjust him against a suitable post or retain him on a supernumerary post with the same pay scale, continuity of service and consequential service benefits until superannuation, treating the disability-linked absence as duty and releasing arrears with 6% annual interest. Justice Moudgil said public employers should not respond with rigidity when disability is acquired in service and must provide accommodation and institutional support with humanity and fairness.

The writ petition was filed by a government employee serving as a Painter in the Haryana Roadways Department, who had been in continuous service since 1986. During the course of his employment, the petitioner suffered a brain haemorrhage and was medically assessed as having 70% disability by a duly constituted Medical Board. A disability certificate dated 29.04.2024 was issued, valid until 29.04.2029, along with a Unique Disability ID. Owing to the medical condition, the petitioner claimed inability to discharge the physical duties attached to his post.

Also Read: State Governments Cannot Add Qualifications For Public Posts Beyond Union Rules: Supreme Court

Invoking Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, along with applicable State instructions, the petitioner sought retention in service on a supernumerary post with continuity of service and attendant benefits till superannuation. A legal notice issued to the authorities did not yield relief, and the competent authority rejected the claim on the ground that the disability certificate was not permanent. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was issued alleging unauthorised absence from duty.

The petitioner challenged both the rejection order and the charge-sheet, contending that the denial-of-service protection ignored the statutory mandate governing employees who acquire disability during service. The State opposed the petition, asserting that the disability certificate was temporary in nature and that the disciplinary action was in accordance with service rules.

The Court noted the medical condition of the petitioner and recorded that “the petitioner, having suffered a brain haemorrhage, is assessed as 70% disabled as per the disability certificate dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure P-1), which is valid till 29.04.2029.” It further observed that “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.”

While examining the objection raised by the respondents regarding the nature of the disability certificate, the Court observed that “the contention of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to benefits due to the absence of a ‘permanent’ disability certificate does not hold good.” The Court recorded that “the certificate issued by the competent Medical Board clearly records 70% disability and specifies its validity up to 29.04.2029.” It further noted that “he will attain the age of 60 years in 2029, which coincides with the validity of the certificate, confirming that he will remain 70% disabled for the entire remaining period of his service.”

Interpreting the statutory protection available to employees acquiring disability during service, the Court recorded that “Section 20 of the Act, 2016 mandates that no employee acquiring disability during service shall be removed, reduced in rank, or denied promotion.” It further observed that “if the employee is unable to continue in the post held, he must be adjusted to a suitable post with the same pay and service benefits, or, if no such post is available, be retained on a supernumerary post until superannuation.”

The Court characterised the nature of the legislation and the State’s obligation by observing that “the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is a humane, remedial, and welfare-oriented legislation.” It further recorded that “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.”

Referring to binding precedent, the Court noted that “the Apex Court in Kunal Singh v. Union of India and Another… has categorically differentiated between the disability of a person and acquired disability while in service.” The Court also relied upon recent authority, recording that “when a disability is acquired in the course of service, the legal framework must respond not with exclusion but with adjustment.” It further observed that “the obligation to reasonably accommodate such employees is not just a matter of administrative grace, but a constitutional and statutory imperative.”

Also Read: Expert Medical Opinion Needed Before Prosecuting Doctors For Medical Negligence: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Court ordered that “the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 passed by respondent No. 3 rejecting the petitioner’s claim, as well as the charge-sheet dated 22.10.2024, are hereby quashed and set aside. 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… till he attains the age of superannuation.”

“The period of absence occasioned due to the petitioner’s medical disability shall be treated as duty for all intents and purposes” and that “all consequential monetary benefits, including arrears of salary… along with interest @ 6% per annum” be released within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana

Case Title: Brij Bhushan v. State of Haryana and Others
Case Number: CWP-31286-2024
Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil