Law Must Bend Toward Inclusion For Persons With Disabilities; Punjab And Haryana High Court Grants Retrospective Promotions With Consequential Benefits Under RPwD Quota To Visually Impaired Forest Employee
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil set aside the Haryana Government’s order rejecting a visually impaired Forest Department employee’s claim for backdated promotions, and directed the State to grant notional, retrospective promotions under the statutory disability quota, with consequential benefits. Holding that protection from disability-based discrimination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 must receive safeguards comparable to a fundamental-right guarantee, the Court said an employee cannot be denied consideration for promotion solely due to disability. The dispute concerned the non-operation of the 3% horizontal reservation (including the blindness/low-vision component) when promotion vacancies arose, despite the employee’s eligibility. The State was ordered to fix pay and seniority, release financial benefits with 6% interest, and comply within four weeks.
The writ petition was filed by a visually impaired employee of the Forest Department, Government of Haryana, challenging the rejection of his claim for retrospective promotions under the disability reservation quota. The petitioner was appointed as a Mali in June 1998 and became eligible for promotion to the post of Forest Guard in 2003 and to the post of Forester in 2013. Although he was later promoted as Forest Guard in 2007 and Forester in 2021, these promotions were granted only after the State extended relaxations relating to physical standards and training requirements.
The petitioner relied on the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which provides for 3% horizontal reservation in employment, including 1% for persons with blindness or low vision. He also relied on State instructions dated 11 July 2023, which made reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities applicable retrospectively from 1 January 1996 to 18 April 2017. The State opposed the claim on the ground that the posts involved were field-level posts requiring physical fitness and visual capacity, and that relaxations granted earlier operated only prospectively.
The Court examined the statutory framework governing disability rights and noted that the disability regime in India is anchored in the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and full participation. It observed that Parliament, through the enactment of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, marked a decisive shift from a charity-based model to one centred on equal opportunity, imposing affirmative obligations on the State to identify suitable posts, reserve vacancies, and carry forward unfilled posts.
While referring to constitutional principles governing equality, the Court recorded the Supreme Court’s exposition on substantive equality and reasonable accommodation and observed: “The right to equality under the Indian Constitution has two facets – formal equality and substantive equality… The principle of reasonable accommodation is one of the means for achieving substantive equality.”
The Court further noted "the measure of a compassionate State is not how it treats the strong, but how it uplifts those whom circumstance has made vulnerable. When statutory rights meant to level an uneven field are allowed to wither by bureaucratic indifference, the Court must intervene not out of sentiment, but out of respect to the Constitution's ethic. Equality is not a mechanical formula but a human commitment. Therefore the law must bend toward inclusion, lest the specially-abled citizen be left standing outside the doors of opportunity to which the Constitution has already given him a key."
Adverting to the facts of the case, the Court observed that “the issue involved is a narrow one as to whether a visually impaired employee was entitled to be considered for promotion against the 1% quota earmarked for persons with blindness or low vision under the 1995 Act.” It recorded that the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Forest Guard in 2003 and Forester in 2013 and that “it is not disputed that he was the sole visually impaired employee in the feeder cadres during the relevant period.”
The Court noted that Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act impose mandatory obligations on the State and reproduced the statutory scheme providing for reservation unless exempted by notification. It recorded that “no such notification has been produced and a pending proposal for exemption does not satisfy the statutory requirement.” Consequently, the Court observed that in the absence of a notified exemption, reservation continued to apply in full measure.
Addressing the State’s contention regarding physical standards and training requirements, the Court observed that such requirements could not override statutory reservation, noting that “if the State seeks to exclude a post from the ambit of reservation, it must do so through a notified exemption.” The Court further recorded that the State’s own instructions dated 11 July 2023 expressly extended horizontal reservation in promotion retrospectively and observed that “the retrospective application of these instructions removes any doubt that the disability quota ought to have been operated in the petitioner’s case.”
The Court concluded that the failure to operate the disability quota resulted in a constitutional violation, observing that “the omission to do so results in a clear breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”
The Court directed that “the petitioner is entitled to promotion against the 3% reservation quota for physically handicapped,” and “shall be accorded notional promotion to the post of Forest Guard from 2003 and Forester from 2013. The promotions shall carry consequential benefits, including fixation of pay and seniority.”
“All financial benefits which shall accrue to the petitioner will carry interest at 6% per annum from the date it became due till the date of it’s realization.”
“The respondents are directed to implement these directions within 4 weeks,” and held that “the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure P-4) is hereby set aside. The present writ petition is allowed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhijeet Singh Rawaley, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
Case Title: Bhim Singh v State of Haryana and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:169939
Case Number: CWP-15259-2024
Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil
