Law Must Bend Toward Inclusion: P&H High Court Directs Retrospective Promotion With Benefits To Visually Impaired Forest Employee
Emphasising that the right to be free from disability-based discrimination, as enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, must be regarded with the same seriousness and protection as a fundamental right—ensuring that no employee is excluded from consideration solely on the basis of disability—the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Haryana Government to grant retrospective promotions with consequential benefits to a visually impaired Forest Department employee under the statutory disability quota.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "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."
The petitioner, a visually impaired employee of the Haryana Forest Department, was appointed as a Mali on 12.06.1998. Under the applicable service rules, the next promotional post was Forest Guard, for which he became eligible in 2003. However, he was promoted only on 13.08.2007, after the Government granted relaxation from certain physical standards.
The next promotional post was Forester, which required ten years' experience as Forest Guard and completion of mandatory training. The petitioner became eligible in 2013 but was promoted only on 23.11.2021, again after the State relaxed the training requirement.
The petitioner claimed that under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which mandates 3% horizontal reservation including 1% for blindness or low vision, he was entitled to consideration for promotion from the dates he became eligible.
In July 2023, the Haryana Government issued instructions extending reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities retrospectively from 01.01.1996 to 18.04.2017. Pursuant to earlier directions of the High Court, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking retrospective promotion, which was rejected by the Additional Chief Secretary on 16.04.2024, leading to the present writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that t he 1995 Disability Act mandates reservation in promotion, including 1% for persons with blindness or low vision.
The petitioner was the only visually impaired employee in the feeder cadre during the relevant years.
Haryana Government instructions dated 11.07.2023 expressly applied disability reservation in promotion retrospectively.
The State contended that Forest Guard and Forester are field-level posts requiring physical fitness and adequate visual capacity.
The petitioner did not fulfill the prescribed qualifications at the time of initial eligibility and was promoted only after specific relaxations, which operate prospectively, added State.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil undertook an extensive analysis of the disability rights framework, tracing its evolution from the 1995 Act to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court observed that disability rights are not acts of charity but an expression of the constitutional promise of dignity, equality, and full participation.
Relying on Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India (2022), the Court reiterated that equality under Article 14 has both formal and substantive dimensions, and that reasonable accommodation is essential to achieve real equality.
The Court noted that in the present case, the material on record indicates that the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Forest Guard in 2003 and to the post of Forester in 2013. It is not disputed that he was the sole visually impaired employee in the feeder cadres during the relevant period.
"The statutory framework is clear as sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act impose mandatory obligations on the State for identification of suitable posts and reservation of at least 3% of vacancies (including 1% for blindness or low vision)," it added.
The judge further said, Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act impose a mandatory obligation on the State to identify posts and reserve vacancies for persons with disabilities. Exclusion from reservation is permissible only through a formal notification, not through pending proposals.
It noted that Haryana's instructions dated 11.07.2023 clearly made disability reservation in promotion applicable for the period 01.01.1996 to 18.04.2017, covering the petitioner's eligibility years."Failure to operate the disability quota in 2003 and 2013 amounted to a breach of Articles 14 and 16."
In the light of the above, the Court held that 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 anum from the date it became due till the date of it's realization," added the judge.
Mr. Abhijeet Singh Rawaley, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG, Haryana
Title: BHIM SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS