Introduction:
In a significant ruling that strengthens the rights of persons with disabilities in service matters, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an employee who acquires a disability during the course of service is entitled to be considered for promotion under the physically handicapped (PH) quota. The case, Jaswinder Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd and Others, was heard by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, where the petitioner sought promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) under the PH category with consequential benefits, after his juniors were promoted on July 16, 2023. The petitioner’s plea was opposed by the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (PSPCL) and the State of Punjab on the grounds that he was not initially recruited under the PH quota and that a clarification on the issue was pending with the Government. The Court, however, rejected these arguments, holding that both the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016) provide protection and equal treatment to employees who acquire disability during their service.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Pawan Kumar along with Advocate Vidushi Kumar, argued that the denial of promotion under the PH category amounted to blatant discrimination. It was contended that the legislative framework, especially Section 47 of the 1995 Act and Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016, explicitly provides that no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires disability during service, and further, that no promotion can be denied merely on the ground of disability.
The petitioner emphasized that the protection under these provisions applies not just to those appointed under the PH quota but also to those who later acquire disability during service. Counsel relied upon judicial precedents, particularly the Supreme Court’s judgment in C.H. Joseph v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (2025), where it was categorically held that reservation benefits in promotion cannot be confined only to employees recruited under the PH category. The Court in that case recognized that employees who acquire disability during the course of service must also be considered for promotion against available PH quota vacancies.
It was further pointed out that the petitioner had repeatedly made representations to the authorities seeking the benefit of promotion under the PH quota. However, despite multiple opportunities, the respondents did not grant him promotion. Instead, his juniors were promoted on July 16, 2023, leaving him discriminated against without any justifiable reason.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the principle of equality under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution was violated. The denial of promotion amounted to arbitrary action by the State authorities. Moreover, the pending clarification by the Government was irrelevant because legislative intent and judicial pronouncements had already clarified the position that acquired disabilities during service deserve equal protection and entitlements.
The petitioner strongly contended that adopting a restrictive interpretation would not only negate the purpose of the disability rights laws but also violate the humane and constitutional approach mandated towards persons with disabilities.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents:
The respondents, represented by Advocate Bhanu Pratap Singh on behalf of PSPCL and Additional Advocate General, Punjab, Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, contested the petitioner’s claim. They submitted that the petitioner was not recruited under the PH quota, and therefore, he could not claim reservation in promotion under that category. The respondents argued that the PH quota benefits were specifically designed for persons who were physically disabled at the time of their entry into service and who were selected under the said quota.
It was further contended that the issue of whether employees who acquire disability during service are entitled to PH quota benefits in promotion was still under consideration by the Government of Punjab. The respondents maintained that until such clarification was issued, it was not possible to extend the benefit to the petitioner. They justified their stand by pointing out that there was no explicit provision in the service rules that allowed for such an extension of benefits to those who acquired disability post-appointment.
Additionally, the respondents argued that the petitioner never applied formally for promotion under the PH category during the process when his juniors were promoted. This, they claimed, disentitled him from later challenging the denial of promotion.
The respondents further submitted that promotions are governed by service regulations and administrative procedures. Unless the State formally modifies its policies to bring them in line with judicial precedents, the petitioner cannot demand retrospective promotion or consequential benefits.
Court’s Findings and Judgment:
After carefully considering the rival submissions, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar delivered a detailed judgment favoring the petitioner. The Court held that both the 1995 Disabilities Act and the RPwD Act, 2016 expressly prohibit the denial of promotion to an employee merely on the ground of disability. Section 47 of the 1995 Act, as well as Section 20 of the RPwD Act, make it abundantly clear that protection is to be granted not just at the stage of entry into service but throughout the service tenure.
The Court observed that adopting the respondents’ argument would defeat the very object of the disability rights legislation, which is to protect and empower persons with disabilities and ensure equality of opportunity. The Court emphasized that the employer cannot create a distinction between employees who entered service under the PH quota and those who acquired disability during service. Such a distinction would amount to discrimination and violate constitutional guarantees of equality.
Justice Brar also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in C.H. Joseph, which had clarified that acquired disabilities must be treated on par with pre-existing disabilities for the purpose of service benefits, including promotion. The Court rejected the contention that a Government clarification was necessary, noting that statutory provisions and binding judicial pronouncements cannot be overridden by executive delays or pending clarifications.
Importantly, the Court noted that the petitioner had in fact submitted multiple representations seeking promotion under the PH category and that his claim was wrongly ignored while juniors were promoted. The record clearly showed that the petitioner was suitable for promotion and there was no denial of his merit or eligibility. The only ground for denial was his acquired disability, which was impermissible in law.
In its final directions, the Court allowed the petition, holding:
“Indubitably, the Respondents have made no denial regarding the suitability of the petitioner for the promotion. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to grant the Petitioner promotion under the PH category, along with all consequential benefits, from 16.07.2023, i.e., the date on which the juniors of the petitioners were promoted under the PH category within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”
Significance of the Judgment:
This ruling is a major step in the development of service jurisprudence for persons with disabilities. By recognizing that employees who acquire disability during service must also benefit from the PH quota in promotions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ensured that disability rights are applied inclusively and humanely. The judgment aligns Indian jurisprudence with constitutional guarantees of equality and the progressive ethos of the RPwD Act, 2016.
It also sends a strong message to employers that disability acquired during service cannot be treated as a disqualification or ground for denying promotional opportunities. Instead, such employees must be given equal protection and advancement, thereby promoting workplace inclusivity and fairness.