Disability During Service Calls For Empathy, Not Punishment: P&H High Court Quashes Chargesheet Against Employee For Unauthorised Absence

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an order rejecting the claim of a Haryana Roadways employee who acquired 70% disability during service. It has directed the State to retain him on a supernumerary post with full service benefits till the age of superannuation.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "an employee who has devoted the prime of his life to public service ought not to be met with rigidity at the moment of his greatest vulnerability. Disability suffered during service calls not for punitive action, but for empathy, accommodation, and institutional support. The State, as a model employer, must respond with humanity and fairness, lest service jurisprudence lose its moral and constitutional compass."

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Helper Painter in Haryana Roadways, Depot Jind, in 1986, regularised in 1995, and promoted as Painter in 2002. During service, he suffered a brain haemorrhage and was assessed as 70% disabled by the Medical Board, Civil Surgeon, Jind, vide disability certificate dated 29 April 2024, valid till 29 April 2029. Due to his medical condition, he became unable to perform the duties of a Painter, including standing or walking properly.

In the present plea, the petitioner challenged the order dated 16 October 2024 by which his claim for retention on a supernumerary post was rejected, and the charge-sheet dated 22 October 2024 issued to him for alleged unauthorised absence from duty. He sought a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order and charge-sheet and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to retain him in service with all consequential benefits till the age of 60 years.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner Advocate R.N Lohan relied on Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Haryana Government instructions dated 31 January 2006 and 6 July 2018, and judicial precedents to contend that an employee who acquires disability during service cannot be removed or denied service benefits and must be adjusted to a suitable post or retained on a supernumerary post till superannuation.

It was argued that the rejection of his claim on the ground that his disability was not “permanent” was arbitrary, especially when the disability certificate clearly assessed him as 70% disabled and was valid till the end of his service tenure.

The State argued that the disability certificate produced by the petitioner was temporary in nature and that benefits under a departmental letter dated 11 July 2023 required a permanent disability certificate.

It was also contended that the petitioner had remained absent from duty without prior notice since 5 June 2024, justifying the issuance of the charge-sheet. The State further claimed that photographic evidence showed that the petitioner was mobile and not fully incapacitated.

After hearing the submissions, the Court rejected the State's contentions, the High Court held that the petitioner clearly fell within the definition of a “person with disability” under Section 2 of the 2016 Act. The Court noted that although the disability certificate mentioned a validity period till 29 April 2029, the petitioner would attain the age of superannuation in 2029 itself, thereby establishing that he would remain 70% disabled for the entire remaining period of service.

The Court held that the insistence on a “permanent” disability certificate was unsustainable and contrary to the spirit of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Emphasising Section 20 of the Act, the Court said, "no employee acquiring disability during service shall be removed, reduced in rank, or denied promotion. If the employee is unable to continue in the post held, he must be adjusted to a suitable post with the same pay and service benefits, or, if no such post is available, be retained on a supernumerary post until superannuation."

In the present case the Court noted that the petitioner's disability clearly prevents him from performing his original duties, and he is entitled to accommodation on a supernumerary post with all consequential benefits.

Reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment in Joginder Kaur v. Central Administrative Tribunal, the Supreme Court decision in Kunal Singh v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 524, and the recent Supreme Court ruling in Ch. Joseph v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (2025 INSC 920), underscoring that employees who acquire disability during service cannot be abandoned or prematurely retired without exploring meaningful redeployment.

Allowing the writ petition, the Court quashed the order dated 16 October 2024 rejecting the petitioner's claim and the charge-sheet dated 22 October 2024.

It also directed the respondents to retain the petitioner on a supernumerary post or adjust him against a suitable post with the same pay scale, continuity of service, and all consequential service benefits till superannuation.

Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG. Haryana

Title: BRIJ BHUSHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Click here to read order