Punjab & Haryana High Court Expands the Meaning of "Medical Emergency" for Persons with Progressive Disabilities

Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Bench: Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors., 
Case No. CWP-2098-2026
Decision Date: 07 July 2026

Background

In a significant judgment strengthening the employment and healthcare rights of persons with disabilities, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a government employee who acquired 100% locomotor disability due to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) cannot be denied statutory protections merely because his treatment was taken in a non-empanelled hospital or because the authorities adopted a narrow understanding of the term "emergency."

The petitioner, an Assistant with the Haryana Board of School Education, developed ALS—a progressive and incurable neurological disorder—during service. After undergoing specialised stem cell therapy in Bengaluru, his claim for medical reimbursement was rejected on the ground that the treatment was not certified as an "emergency." He also sought protection of his employment under Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, including accommodation on a suitable post or creation of a supernumerary post.

The Court's Findings

The court articulated its decision through several core legal and humanitarian principles:

1. The Right to Life and Self-Preservation (Article 21)

The court emphasized that the preservation of human life is instinctive, sacred, precious, and inviolable. Under Article 21, the State bears a fundamental obligation to ensure timely medical care to those in need. The court ruled that the State cannot reasonably expect citizens to refrain from seeking life-saving or specialized care simply because a hospital is non-empanelled. Denying reimbursement under these circumstances fails the test of fairness and reasonableness, thereby violating fundamental constitutional rights.

2. A Disability-Inclusive Redefinition of "Emergency"

The state had originally denied the petitioner's claim based on an opinion from the Civil Surgeon stating the treatment was not an "Medical Emergency". The court sharply rejected this narrow interpretation, noting that the conventional understanding of an "emergency"—which looks only for immediate crises or imminent death—is inherently  "able-bodied centric".

For individuals suffering from progressive, degenerative chronic diseases like Motor Neuron Disease / Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), the court ruled that the definition of an emergency must be wider. It must encompass situations where a delay in medical intervention would result in a rapid, irreversible loss of bodily functions and permanent damage. Seeking immediate, specialized stem cell therapy to halt rapid degeneration meets this inclusive standard of an emergency.

3. Protection for Chronic Diseases

Relying on established judicial precedent (State of Haryana vs. Manoj Jain), the court noted that medical reimbursement claims for recognized chronic diseases cannot be denied solely on technical or bureaucratic grounds. Because the petitioner's condition was categorized as a Chronic Disease by the State Government, the test of essentiality was satisfied. The court affirmed that the petitioner could not be faulted for prioritizing immediate, specialized treatment to safeguard their quality of life over waiting for administrative approvals.

On the employment issue, the Court reaffirmed the mandate of Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016, holding that an employee who acquires a disability during service is entitled to be shifted to a suitable post with the same pay and service benefits. If no suitable post is immediately available, the employer must consider the statutory mechanism of a supernumerary post rather than depriving the employee of livelihood or forcing prolonged leave without pay. The Court emphasised that reasonable accommodation must be meaningful and not merely symbolic.

Why This Judgment Matters

This decision is important because it moves disability jurisprudence beyond formal equality and recognises that legal concepts such as "medical emergency" must be interpreted through the lived realities of persons with disabilities. The judgment reinforces that administrative rules governing medical reimbursement and employment cannot be applied mechanically where doing so defeats the objectives of the RPwD Act, 2016 and the constitutional promise of dignity under Article 21.

For government employers across India, the judgment serves as a reminder that the duty to provide reasonable accommodation extends beyond physical accessibility and includes fair decisions relating to medical treatment, continuation of service, and protection of livelihood for employees who acquire disabilities during service.

Read the judgement

Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors. CWP-2098-2026 dated 07 July 2026 [PDF 271 KB]

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)

Punjab & Haryana HC seeks report from three Govts on accessibility of judicial complexes to persons with disabilities [Interim order included]

Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Bench: Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji

Case No.: CWP-PIL-56-2024

Case Title: Court on its Own Motion vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Date of Hearing & Interim Order: 21 March 2024

NDOH: 16 April 2024

Subject: Accessibility of courts and judicial complexes

Brief:

The present petition was listed before the division bench on account of a reference made by the learned Single Judge Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, to provide appropriate infrastructure to make judicial complexes across the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T., Chandigarh accessible to persons with disabilities, in public interest, keeping in mind the provisions of Sections 44, 45 and 46 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Taking a suo motu cognizane of the lack of infrastructure in judicial complexes which may be inaccessible to persons with disabilities in Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh the division bench of Acting Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji on 21 Mar 2024 sought a status report from the Governments of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh on the accessibility status of judicial complexes to persons with disabilities. 

The division bench asked the Governments whether there is compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the infrastructure of Judicial complexes in various court complexes of districts and High Court.

The matter was referred to the bench on a plea was filed by a 60-year-old disabled lady who sought transfer of her case at District Court Punjab's Malerkotla, from the first floor to the ground floor as the judicial complex did not have any provision for a ramp or an elevator to facilitate a disabled person to attend the Court proceedings.

The right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not limited to mere animal-like existence but includes the right to live a meaningful life, with dignity in the truest sense of the term. Absence of appropriate facilities in public buildings, especially judicial complexes, equates to a denial of access to justice and amounts to discrimination against persons with disabilities.

The State has been reminded of its obligation to create a level playing field and provide all necessary facilities to realize the fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens by the Constitution, including the right to move freely across the territory of India. The next date of hearing is scheduled for 16 April 2024, where the State is expected to file a special affidavit concerning the District Court of Malerkotla.

This case is a testament to the judiciary’s proactive role in safeguarding the rights of the disabled and ensuring that justice is accessible to all, regardless of physical limitations. It serves as a reminder that the pursuit of justice must be inclusive and accommodating to the needs of every citizen.

The order though restricts to seeking status on provisions of lifts and ramps, thus leaving out a huge gamut under the accessibility domain that includes, parking, signage and orientation, tactile maps, TGSIs, colour contrasts, floor surface, accesssible toilets, emergency evacuation for people with disabilities, sign language interpretation for deaf litigants and lawyers, braille and ICT Access for persons with vision impairments among others. 

The court should ideally call for a proper access audit of all the district courts in the two states and the UT of Chandigarh from empanelled access auditors of Govt. of India and follow up until the access recommendations  are implemented in toto. We have already delayed the accessibility mandate as the law provided for 5 year time frame for buildings that expired in 2022.

Read the interim order