Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Case No.: CWP-31286-2024
Case Title: Brij Bhushan v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 19 December 2025
Cases Referred: Kunal Singh v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 524; Ch. Joseph v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (2025)
In a significant reaffirmation of the rights of employees acquiring disability during service, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that denying service protection on account of disability strikes at the very foundation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court emphasised that such an approach not only violates statutory protections but also erodes human dignity.
Background
The petitioner, a long-serving employee of Haryana Roadways, was initially appointed in 1986 and later promoted as a Painter. During his service, he suffered a brain haemorrhage and was assessed with 70% disability by a competent medical authority, rendering him unable to perform his original duties.
Invoking Section 20 of the RPwD Act, he sought retention in service on a supernumerary or suitable alternative post with full service benefits until superannuation. Despite a legal notice and earlier directions, the authorities rejected his claim on the ground that his disability was not “permanent” and further initiated disciplinary proceedings alleging unauthorised absence.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging both the rejection order and the charge-sheet.
Key Issues
Whether an employee acquiring disability during service can be denied protection due to absence of a “permanent” disability certificate
Scope and application of Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016
Legality of disciplinary action in the context of disability-related absence
Court’s Analysis
The Court rejected the State’s narrow interpretation of disability certification. It held that the petitioner clearly fell within the statutory definition of a “person with disability,” given the extent of functional limitations affecting his ability to work and perform daily activities.
Importantly, the Court noted that the disability certificate—valid up to 2029—covered the remaining period of the petitioner’s service, making the distinction between “temporary” and “permanent” disability irrelevant in the facts of the case.
Reiterating the mandate of Section 20 of the RPwD Act, the Court underscored that:
An employee acquiring disability cannot be removed, reduced in rank, or denied promotion
If unable to perform existing duties, the employee must be shifted to a suitable post
Where no such post exists, the employee must be retained on a supernumerary post with full benefits
The Court also drew upon Supreme Court jurisprudence to reinforce that reasonable accommodation is not discretionary but a legal obligation flowing from constitutional principles of equality and dignity.
Observations on State as a Model Employer
In a strongly worded observation, the Court held that public authorities must act with sensitivity and responsibility when dealing with employees who acquire disabilities during service. It cautioned against bureaucratic rigidity and emphasised that institutional responses must prioritise inclusion over exclusion.
The judgment highlights that beneficial legislation like the RPwD Act must be interpreted purposively, ensuring that employees are not pushed out of service due to circumstances beyond their control.
Decision
Allowing the petition, the Court:
Quashed the rejection order and the charge-sheet
Directed the State to retain the petitioner on a supernumerary or suitable post
Ensured continuity of service, full salary, and all consequential benefits
Ordered payment of arrears with interest
Directed that the period of absence due to disability be treated as duty
Commentary
This judgment is a crucial addition to the growing body of jurisprudence reinforcing employment security for persons who acquire disabilities during service. It decisively rejects technical objections—such as the nature of disability certification—that are often used to deny statutory protections.
The ruling aligns with earlier Supreme Court precedents and strengthens the principle that reasonable accommodation and service continuity are enforceable rights, not administrative concessions.
For disability rights practitioners, the judgment is particularly important in addressing a recurring issue: the misuse of procedural or certification-based grounds to dilute the protections under Section 20 of the RPwD Act.
At a broader level, the decision reiterates that the State’s role as a model employer must be measured not by formal compliance, but by its commitment to dignity, inclusion, and substantive equality.