IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
Jaswinder Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd And Others – Respondents
CWP-11291-2025
Decided On : 08-08-2025
JUDGMENT :
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the speaking order dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P-18) and further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer, Electrical in the 4% quota under physically handicap (in short ‘PH’) category as juniors of the petitioner have already been promoted on 16.07.2023 (Annexure P-5).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted, whereas, the petitioner has been denied the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer Electrical meant for persons with disabilities in view of Sections 33 and 34 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (in short ‘RPWD Act’). The case of the petitioner is identical with the other persons who have been promoted in the physically handicap category. Initially the petitioner was appointed to the post of Junior Engineer under the Schedule Class category in the respondent-Corporation on 17.06.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner met with a motor vehicle accident and has suffered serious injuries which caused the petitioner’s permanent disability to the extent of 75 per cent. The petitioner has been issued a disability certificate on 18.10.2019, by Chief Medical Officer, Sangrur (Annexure P-3). Further, on 26.02.2021, the respondent- Corporation published a tentative seniority list of technical subordinates, in which the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.612, whereas, three persons namely Sh.Amardeep Singh, Sh. Sonu Sharma and Sh.Amar Singh were placed at Sr. Nos. 638, 660 and 629 respectively, have been promoted vide office order No.140/BEG-I, dated 16.07.2023 under physically handicap category, leaving behind the petitioner.
3. Further, being aggrieved, petitioner had submitted multiple representations for seeking similar benefit as has been granted to the juniors of the petitioner in the handicap category. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.31808 of 2024 and vide final order dated 26.11.2024 this Court has directed the respondent-Corporation to consider and decide the claim made by the petitioner in representation dated 27.08.2024 in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order. Further, the petitioner has laid a specific reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP-20174 of 2023, Sukhmandar Singh Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others rendered on 23.08.2024 in the aforesaid representation. However, while passing the speaking order, enigmatically no reference has been made to the judgment relied upon by the petitioner or to the specific instances and the judicial precedents relied upon by the petitioner. Rather, it has been conveyed to the petitioner in the speaking order that the Government of Punjab has sought clarification vide letter dated 22.06.2023 from the Government of India, that the matter of adopting the instructions issued by Govt. of India, whereby it was stated that the persons who acquired disability during his/her service is entitled to get benefits of reservation as a PwD is still under consideration and his case would be considered for the promotion after the clarification is received from the Government of Punjab (Annexure P-18). Further, it is stated in the Annexure P-18 at para-10 that no person junior to the petitioner has been promoted under schedule caste category.
4. Learned counsel further refers to representations (Annexures P-8 and P-12) and his representation was sent to Executive Engineer Distribution Division, Sunam vide Endst No.4764 dated 13.11.2019 for further necessary action. Thereafter, communication was made between the concerned authorities of the respondent-Corporation regarding entry of the petitioner in handicap category in the seniority list. On 11.
Kunal Singh Versus Union of India and another
Bhagwan Dass and another Versus Punjab State Electricity Board
State of Kerala and others Versus Leesamma Joseph
Rajeev Kumar Gupta and others Versus Union of India and others
Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board
Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India
The State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph
C.H Joseph v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation
Employees acquiring disability during service are entitled to promotion benefits under the PH quota, irrespective of the timing of their disability acquisition as confirmed by the RPWD Act.
Persons with benchmark disabilities entitled to 4% reservation in promotion to identified posts irrespective of mode, notionally from 30.06.2016 subject to eligibility via review committee; supernume....
(1) Total number of vacancies in cadre strength would include vacancies to be filled in by nomination as well as by promotion.(2) Absence of rules to provide for reservation in promotion would not de....
Shifting disabled employee to new post under Section 47 does not require counting prior service for new cadre seniority; existing employees' seniority protected; promotion denial valid if lacking min....
Persons with disabilities are entitled to promotion under the Disabilities Act, 2016, and must be considered for such promotions as per the law.
Only in those cases that the Government is of the view that the posts in the promotional cadres cannot be reserved for the PwD category due to functional or other reasons, the same cannot be used as ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.