The petitioner was employed with the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (PSPCL). During the course of his service, he acquired a disability, qualifying him to be considered under the physically handicapped (PH) quota. When promotions for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) were made on July 16, 2023, his juniors were promoted under the PH category, but his claim for promotion was denied. The authorities communicated to him that the issue of whether an employee acquiring disability during service is entitled to reservation benefits in promotion was still under consideration by the State Government, and therefore, his case could only be decided after clarification. Left without relief, the petitioner approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking a direction to grant him promotion under the PH category, with all consequential benefits from the date his juniors were promoted.
The petitioner argued that once he had acquired a disability during the course of service, he became entitled to be considered under the PH quota for the purposes of promotion. He pointed out that both the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Section 47) and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Section 20) mandate that no employee shall be denied promotion merely on the ground of disability. He further submitted that his representations for promotion were repeatedly ignored despite his juniors being promoted. The denial, according to him, violated statutory rights as well as constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21.
The State authority opposed the claim on the ground that the petitioner had not entered service under the PH category and had acquired the disability only during his tenure. According to them, the benefit of reservation in promotion was intended solely for those recruited under the PH quota at the time of appointment. It was also argued that the petitioner had not applied for promotion specifically under the handicapped category and therefore could not demand the benefit as a matter of right. Further, the respondents submitted that the matter was under consideration by the Government and no benefit could be extended until an official clarification was issued.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar rejected the arguments advanced by the respondents and strongly reaffirmed the legal and constitutional protection of employees acquiring disability during service. The Court observed: “Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016 expressly state that no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service and that no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence and particularly noted the principle from C.H. Joseph v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (2025), stating: “The benefit of reservation in promotion under the PH category cannot be confined only to those who are inducted in service in the PH category. Employees who acquire disability during their service are also entitled to be considered for promotion against the available disabled quota.”
The Court emphasized the need for sensitivity, observing: “A humane approach is imperative in such cases, for an employee who acquires a disability during the course of service is entitled to protection under Section 47 of the 1995 Act or, as the case may be, under Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016.”
The Court also dismissed the respondent’s argument that the petitioner had not applied under the handicapped category, noting: “The record reflects that the Petitioner had submitted multiple representations seeking the benefit of promotion, which was in fact extended to his juniors in the PH category. Despite having several opportunities to consider the Petitioner’s claim, the Respondents failed to grant him the benefit.”
Finally, Justice Brar made it clear that any administrative clarification by the Government could not override the statutory mandate: “Any clarification by the Government cannot supersede the legislative and judicial mandate in this regard.”
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petitioner’s plea. It held that there was no denial regarding the petitioner’s suitability for promotion, and therefore, the denial was solely on account of an impermissible distinction between original PH recruits and employees acquiring disability during service. The Court directed: “Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to grant the Petitioner promotion under the PH category, along with all consequential benefits, from 16.07.2023, i.e., the date on which the juniors of the petitioner were promoted under the PH category, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”
Written by Adv. Deeksha Rai
