Disabled Lineman Denied Promotion While Juniors Were Elevated: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Notional Regularisation

In a significant ruling on disability rights and service equality, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a workman who suffered permanent disability during service cannot be denied promotion in a discriminatory manner when similarly placed juniors were elevated.Justice Namit Kumar said, "such an unsubstantial act of the respondents-department in discriminating the plaintiff is wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the act of the respondents-department in discriminating and ignoring the plaintiff in a pick and choose manner is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the principles of equality and fairness enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."The Court highlighted that moreover, the respondents have failed to place on record any plausible justification for treating the appellant-plaintiff differently from other similarly situated employees.Accordingly, the Court opined that the action of the respondents-department in ignoring and discriminating against the appellant-plaintiff is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, the appellant-plaintiff is required to be treated as ALM on regular basis w.e.f. 16.08.1988 and further, he is held entitled to all the retiral benefits treating him to be a regular employee.BackgroundMohan Lal had joined the electricity department (then HSEB, now UHBVN) as a daily wager in May 1980 and was promoted as T-Mate in December 1982. On April 21, 1988, while repairing an electric pole in the course of duty, he met with a serious accident resulting in amputation of his left leg. He remained under treatment at PGI Chandigarh till March 1989 and resumed duty on April 16, 1989 after being declared medically fit. During his treatment, he was offered appointment as ALM on regular basis on August 16, 1988. However, the offer was cancelled on September 27, 1988. Subsequently, he was offered the post of Helper Grade-II in December 1992, which too was withdrawn. Instead, he was appointed as T-Mate on work charge basis in March 1992.Aggrieved, he filed a civil suit seeking promotion as ALM/Helper Grade-I from August 16, 1988. The Trial Court decreed the suit, directing his promotion or grant of monetary benefits. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree, holding that he had accepted re-employment on work charge basis and received compensation.The Court noted that the offer of appointment as ALM on regular basis dated 16.08.1988 was admitted by the department. Several juniors—were promoted as ALM despite permanent disability.No justification was furnished for denying similar treatment to the plaintiff and the Court held that once the plaintiff had been offered regular appointment as ALM, a higher post than T-Mate (work charge), he became entitled to that position along with consequential benefits.It found the First Appellate Court's observations regarding his physical incapacity to perform field duties as “uncalled for,” and rejected its finding on limitation as erroneous, particularly since the issue was not pressed before the Trial Court.Terming the departmental action as “pick and choose” discrimination, the Court held that denying promotion while extending the benefit to similarly situated juniors was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.Accordingly, the Court restored the Trial Court's decree and directed that Mohan Lal be treated as ALM on regular basis w.e.f. 16.08.1988 notionally, with all consequential retiral benefits and arrears, along with 6% interest per annum.Ex-Gratia BenefitsIn the connected writ petition filed by his wife (who also passed away during proceedings), the respondents contended that ex-gratia benefits under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 were not payable as Mohan Lal was never regularised.However, in light of the Court's finding that he must be treated as a regular ALM from August 16, 1988, the Court held that his family is entitled to ex-gratia benefits under the 2006 Rules.The respondents were directed to release all consequential benefits, including arrears and ex-gratia assistance, to the legal representatives within four months.Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant/petitioner.Mr. Shailender Singh Gill, Advocate, for Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Jindal, Advocate, for the respondents in RSA No.3427 of 1998.Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate, for the respondents in CWP No.1076 of 2011Title: Mohan Lal (deceased) through his LRs v. The A.E.E./T & S.W. Workshop, H.S.E.B. Colony (now U.H.B.V.N.), Kunjpura Road, Karnal, and othersClick here to read order

Disabled Lineman Denied Promotion While Juniors Were Elevated: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Notional Regularisation

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags