Introduction:
In a significant judgment reaffirming the rights of persons with disabilities in public employment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that the State cannot deny reservation in promotion to a disabled employee merely because formal rules have not been framed. The Court strongly criticized the Haryana Government for failing to extend statutory benefits to an employee suffering from haemophilia and observed that the State, which ought to function as a “parent” to its employees, had instead become a “reluctant roadblock” in the petitioner’s pursuit of equality and dignity.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Sandeep Moudgil while deciding a petition filed by a Forest Department employee challenging the denial of promotion benefits under the Persons with Disabilities quota. The petitioner, who had initially joined service as a Forest Guard on compassionate grounds in 1996, argued that despite being a person with benchmark disability recognized under law, he had repeatedly been denied consideration for promotion under the reservation framework available to persons with disabilities.
The dispute arose after the petitioner was reverted from the post of Forester following withdrawal of his notional appointment through an order dated March 11, 2026. According to the petitioner, the authorities had completely ignored his statutory entitlement to reservation in promotion under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and had unlawfully deprived him of career advancement opportunities that ought to have been available to him for nearly two decades.
The case carried wider implications because it raised fundamental questions regarding implementation of disability rights in public service, the constitutional obligation of the State to ensure substantive equality, and the enforceability of reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities. The Court was called upon to examine whether executive inaction or absence of service rules could override statutory protections enacted by Parliament.
While deciding the case, the High Court relied upon important judgments of the Supreme Court, including Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India and State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph, both of which recognized reservation in promotion as a legally enforceable right flowing from disability legislation.
The judgment is significant not only because it grants relief to the petitioner but also because it sends a strong message that welfare legislation meant to protect vulnerable groups cannot be diluted through bureaucratic delay, administrative apathy, or refusal to frame rules. The Court’s observations underscore the judiciary’s continuing effort to transform formal equality into meaningful inclusion for persons with disabilities within public institutions.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner contended that he had been appointed as a Forest Guard on compassionate grounds in 1996 and had faithfully discharged his duties throughout his service career despite suffering from haemophilia, a condition recognized as a specified disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. According to him, he fulfilled all eligibility criteria for promotion at various stages of service but was consistently denied consideration under the quota reserved for persons with disabilities.
It was argued that despite the statutory mandate guaranteeing reservation in promotion for persons with benchmark disabilities, the State authorities failed to extend such benefits to him since 2006. The petitioner submitted that this denial had adversely affected his entire career progression, including promotional opportunities, pay fixation, seniority, and service benefits.
The petitioner also challenged the legality of the March 11, 2026 order by which he was reverted from the post of Forester following withdrawal of his notional appointment. According to him, the authorities acted arbitrarily by ignoring his independent statutory entitlement to reservation in promotion while passing the impugned order.
It was further contended that the State’s refusal to grant promotion benefits solely on the ground that specific service rules had not been framed was legally untenable. The petitioner argued that statutory rights conferred under parliamentary legislation cannot be defeated merely because the executive failed to formulate procedural rules or administrative guidelines.
The petitioner relied heavily upon judgments of the Supreme Court recognizing reservation in promotion as an enforceable right for persons with disabilities. It was argued that the constitutional guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 16 extends beyond formal equality and includes substantive equality, affirmative action, and reasonable accommodation for disabled employees.
According to the petitioner, limiting reservation only to initial recruitment while denying promotional opportunities would result in stagnation, discrimination, and exclusion of disabled employees from higher positions in public service. Such an interpretation, it was argued, would defeat the very object and purpose of disability rights legislation.
The petitioner therefore sought quashing of the reversion order and requested directions to the State to reconsider his case for promotion from the dates he became eligible under the Persons with Disabilities quota. He also prayed for consequential benefits, including notional promotions, arrears, and restoration of service advantages wrongfully denied to him.
On the other hand, the State of Haryana opposed the petition and defended the impugned action. Represented by Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan, the State argued that reservation in promotion could not be granted in the absence of specific rules or policies governing such reservation within the department.
The State contended that while the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act provides certain protections and reservation benefits, implementation of promotional reservation requires appropriate service rules and administrative mechanisms. In the absence of such rules, according to the State, no enforceable right to promotion could be claimed by the petitioner.
It was further argued that the petitioner’s notional appointment had been withdrawn in accordance with applicable service regulations and administrative considerations. The respondents attempted to justify the reversion order by contending that the petitioner’s claim did not automatically entitle him to continued promotional benefits.
The State also appeared to suggest that the absence of an explicit reservation framework for promotion within the department prevented the authorities from granting the relief sought by the petitioner. According to the respondents, the matter involved policy considerations and administrative implementation beyond the scope of judicial interference.
However, the State’s submissions faced serious scrutiny from the Court, particularly in light of binding Supreme Court precedents affirming reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities as a statutory right rather than a discretionary policy benefit.
Court’s Judgment:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition and delivered a strong judgment in favour of the petitioner, holding that the State Government could not deny reservation in promotion to a person with benchmark disability merely because appropriate rules had not been framed.
At the outset, Justice Sandeep Moudgil expressed deep concern regarding the continuing struggle faced by persons with disabilities in securing rights already guaranteed under law. The Court observed that legislation enacted to protect dignity and equality of disabled persons should operate as a sanctuary rather than a promise indefinitely delayed through administrative inaction.
The Bench remarked that no citizen should be compelled to approach courts merely to enforce rights that are already clearly recognized by statute. According to the Court, such delays and denials undermine the spirit of fairness, equality, and social justice embodied in constitutional and statutory frameworks.
A central aspect of the judgment was the recognition that haemophilia constitutes a “specified disability” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court found that the petitioner satisfied all eligibility requirements for promotion throughout his service career and that denial of consideration under the PwD quota since 2006 amounted to a continuing wrong.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that absence of service rules prevented implementation of reservation in promotion. Justice Moudgil categorically held that statutory rights flowing from parliamentary legislation cannot be defeated by executive failure or administrative inaction.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings in Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Leesamma Joseph. These judgments recognized that reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities is not a matter of governmental charity or discretion but an enforceable legal right flowing from disability rights legislation.
The Court emphasized that limiting reservation benefits only to initial recruitment would frustrate the purpose of the law and create stagnation among disabled employees. Such an interpretation, according to the Bench, would reduce persons with disabilities to lower-level positions throughout their careers and effectively deny them meaningful participation in public administration.
Justice Moudgil observed that equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution requires substantive equality rather than mere formal equality. The constitutional guarantee, according to the Court, obligates the State to adopt affirmative measures, including reservation in promotion and reasonable accommodation, to ensure real inclusion of persons with disabilities in public service.
The Court strongly criticized the approach adopted by the State authorities. It observed that when the State, expected to function as a “parent” to its employees, becomes a “reluctant roadblock,” it erodes confidence in governance and compels vulnerable individuals to undertake exhausting litigation for rights already guaranteed by law.
The judgment also found serious flaws in the impugned reversion order dated March 11, 2026. The Court noted that the authorities had completely ignored the petitioner’s independent statutory entitlement to reservation in promotion while withdrawing his notional appointment. This omission, according to the Court, rendered the order arbitrary, unreasonable, and legally unsustainable.
Another important aspect of the judgment was the Court’s recognition of the concept of continuing wrong. Since the petitioner had been denied promotional consideration under the disability quota for years, the Court held that the illegality continued to adversely impact his service career and therefore could not be dismissed merely on grounds of delay or limitation.
The Bench emphasized that disability rights legislation must be interpreted liberally to advance inclusion, dignity, and equal opportunity. Welfare statutes enacted for vulnerable groups, according to the Court, should not be frustrated through narrow administrative interpretation or procedural excuses.
Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order to the extent it ignored the petitioner’s entitlement under the Persons with Disabilities quota. The authorities were directed to reconsider his case for promotion from the dates on which he became eligible and to grant him notional promotions along with all consequential service benefits.
The Court further directed payment of arrears with interest at the rate of six per cent and ordered the State authorities to complete compliance within four months.
The judgment stands as a powerful reaffirmation of disability rights within public employment and reinforces the principle that statutory protections for persons with disabilities cannot remain symbolic promises dependent upon executive convenience. By insisting upon substantive equality and enforceable affirmative action, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has strengthened the legal framework protecting disabled employees from institutional exclusion and bureaucratic indifference.