IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3070-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 11.02.2026 Tarsem Singh ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Makkad, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 5.

*******

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. Present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the speaking order dated 11.12.2025 (Annexure P-20) and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to transfer and post the petitioner at his nearest station, preferably Cheeka, as a special and priority case, being a person with 70% permanent locomotor disability and sole caregiver of his wife, who is suffering from stage-V lung cancer, in the light of directions issued by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2025 passed in CWP-23677-2025 titled as Bijender Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and others (Annexure P-17), letters dated 07.04.1989 & 23.12.2008 (Annexures P-2 & P-3 respectively), the judgment dated 03.03.2025 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.2 of 2024 – Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, 2025 INSC 300 and the statutory mandate under Sections 3(5), 20(2) & 20(5) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

2. On 03.02.2026, following order was passed by this Court: -

“1. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is a permanent employee with 70% permanent locomotor disability as discernible from Annexure P-1. Further his sole caregiver of his wife suffering from Stage-IV lung cancer as discernible from Annexure P-6. The petitioner was posted as SDO at Kaithal far away from his permanent aboard causing extreme hardship. Despite Government circulars (Annexures P-2 & P-3) and the Model Online Transfer Policy, 2025 (Annexures P-4 & P-5) mandating disability sensitive postings, his repeated representations (Annexures P-11 to P-16) were ignored. This Court in CWP No.34017 of 2025 (Annexure P-18) directed the respondents to pass a reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner.

2. In purported compliance, the impugned order dated

11.12.2025 (Annexure P-20) was passed which by mechanically rejecting the request of the petitioner, ignoring the statutory protections under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and binding judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.23677 of 2025 titled as ‘Bijender Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and others’ decided on 18.08.2025 which was further upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Intra Court Appeal and the respondent-Corporation has already filed a compliance report before this Court and implementing the directions issued by this Court in Bijender Singh’s case (supra) as such, the impugned order not only violates the Sections 3 (5), 20 (2) and 20 (5) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and is also contrary to the directions issued by this Court in Bijender Singh’s case (supra).

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner’s rejection is based upon the pendency of the criminal case and the respondent-Corporation relying upon the instructions of the Government of Haryana in which the delinquent employee cannot be posted in the same district where the criminal proceedings are pending.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is enacted by the Parliament and as per the statutory scheme of the Act, it will have primacy over all laws for the time being in force and the mandate of the Act cannot be superseded by the executive instructions.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 5 seeks a short accommodation to have complete instr