IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.05.2026 Sukhwinder Kaur …Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, and Mr. Dharam Jit, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amit Sahni, Additional Advocate General, Haryana TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.02.2001, Annexure P-6, to the extent it restricts grant of conveyance allowance to the petitioner from 02.02.2001, instead of 05.02.1994, the date she joined the service, as also the instructions dated

15.02.1984, Annexure P-9.

2. It is contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as S.S. Teacher/Mistress on adhoc basis on 02.02.1994, Annexure P-1, and joined the service on 05.02.1994. The appointment was a stop-gap arrangement in regular scale of pay up to 21.05.1994. However, the petitioner continued working as such without any break, and was regularised vide order dated 21.01.2000, Annexure P-3, against a post reserved for the Physically Handicapped employees in the pay grade of ₹1400-2600 (pre-revised) plus allowances, as sanctioned by the government from time to time, with effect from 02.02.1994.

She was seventy per cent permanently disabled, as apparent from the Medical Certificate issued to her by the competent authority dated 16.07.1989, Annexure P-4. Accordingly, she claimed handicapped/conveyance allowance also by submitting an application dated 19.05.2000, Annexure P-5. Considering the same, the Department granted the allowance only with effect from 02.02.2001, vide the impugned order. It is further contended that having been regularised in service with effect from 02.02.1994, she was entitled to the allowance from the date of appointment itself, especially when it was not in dispute that she had been suffering from permanent disability prior to joining the service and had been appointed against the quota of posts reserved for the physically challenged.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel contended that the Allowance was admissible to the petitioner only from the date recommendation for the purpose was received from the concerned medical authority by the Head of the Department, in terms of instructions dated 10.09.1982 and 15.02.1984, Annexures R-1 and R-2, respectively. The petitioner’s case for grant of conveyance allowance was received in the Department on 02.02.2001 for the first time. Accordingly, it was granted to her from that date.

4. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered.

5. As apparent, the petitioner was suffering from permanent disability of seventy per cent prior to joining service as S.S. Mistress on 05.02.1994, and was later regularised from that date vide order dated 21.01.2000. The conveyance allowance, however, was given to her with effect from 02.02.2001, on the ground that recommendation for the purpose had been received from the concerned authority on that date. The instructions dated 10.09.1982 and 15.02.1984, have been relied upon by the respondents to justify the action. The first instruction is to the effect that ‘An orthopaedically handicapped employee will be eligible for conveyance allowance only if he or she has a minimum 40% permanent partial disability of both the upper and lower extremity deformities.’ The second instruction, dated 15.02.1984, has been issued with reference to the first instructions and stipulates that ‘conveyance allowance may be granted with effect from the date of recommendation for the grant of the concerned medical authority is received by the Head of Departments. However, in the case of existing employees on 1.1.1981, allowance may be granted with effect from 1st January 1981.’ The petitioner’s case has been considered with reference to the first stipulation, that is, from the date of receiving the recommendation, because she was not in service on 01.01.1981.

6. T