Acquired Disability Not a Ground to Push Employees Out of Service: P&H High Court

Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court
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.

Read the Judgement (PDF 140 KB)

Temporary Disability Certificate subsumes the requirement of " long- term impairment" - can't be used to deny reservation benefits under RPWD Act

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Justice Prateek Jalan
Case No.: W.P.(C) 13146/2021
Case Title: Anmol Kumar Mishra (minor) v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 29 November 2021

Background

The Delhi High Court has clarified that the temporary Disability Certificate cannot be ground to deny reservation benefits  under section 32, while offering an inclusive interpretation of the RPWD Act. The writ petition was filed challenging the cancellation of the petitioner’s admission to IIT Kharagpur under the Persons with Disability (PwD) category in the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) process.  

The petitioner suffered from keratoconus, a visual impairment condition, and possessed a disability certificate certifying 40% disability under the category of low vision. The certificate described the disability as temporary and valid for one year.

Prior to participating in the admission process, the petitioner had specifically sought clarification from various IITs regarding his eligibility under the PwD category. He was informed that he would be eligible subject to submission of a valid disability certificate. Thereafter, he successfully cleared the examination and was allotted a seat in the Electronics and Electrical Communication Engineering Dual Degree course at IIT Kharagpur.

However, his admission was subsequently cancelled on the ground that the disability certificate mentioned that his condition was “likely to improve”, and therefore did not qualify for reservation benefits.  

Key Observations

The Delhi High Court examined the scheme of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Guidelines issued on 04 January 2018 governing assessment and certification of specified disabilities.  

The Court observed that neither the Act nor the statutory definitions of “person with disability”, “person with benchmark disability”, or “specified disability” distinguish between temporary and permanent disabilities in the context of visual impairment.

It noted that the applicable Guidelines specifically contemplate issuance of temporary disability certificates in certain conditions, including keratoconus, particularly for purposes such as pursuing education.

The Court held that once the petitioner possessed a valid certificate certifying 40% disability, denial of reservation solely because the condition was temporary or “likely to improve” amounted to an unduly restrictive interpretation of the statutory framework.

Importantly, the Court observed that the petitioner had fully disclosed the nature and validity of his disability certificate prior to the admission process, and the respondents themselves had earlier acknowledged his eligibility under the PwD category.

The Court emphasised that the RPwD Act is a beneficial legislation and must be interpreted liberally in a manner that furthers its objectives of inclusion and equal participation, rather than through narrow technical constructions that defeat statutory rights.

Directions Issued

• The communication cancelling the petitioner’s admission was quashed.
• The respondents were directed to take consequential steps forthwith for restoring the petitioner’s admission.
• The writ petition was allowed without costs.

Commentary

The judgment is significant in clarifying that disability rights under the RPwD Act cannot be denied through rigid distinctions unsupported by the statutory framework. By recognising temporary disability certificates as valid where expressly contemplated under the Guidelines, the Court adopted an interpretation consistent with the inclusive objectives of the legislation.

The decision also highlights the importance of institutional consistency and fairness in disability-related admissions. Having accepted the petitioner’s eligibility throughout the admission process, the subsequent denial based on the very nature of the disclosed certificate was correctly viewed as unsustainable.

Importantly, the ruling reinforces that beneficial legislation concerning persons with disabilities must be interpreted in a manner that advances substantive inclusion rather than creating procedural barriers through narrow or technical readings of eligibility conditions.

The judgment therefore strengthens the principle that statutory protections for persons with disabilities must operate practically and effectively, particularly in the sphere of access to higher education.

Read the judgement

               

-----