Back
Disabled Lineman Wins Backdated Promotion After Decades of Discrimination: Punjab & Haryana HC
In a powerful affirmation of equality in employment, the has ruled that must treat late Mohan Lal—a lineman who lost his leg in a line-of-duty accident—as a regular Assistant Lineman (ALM) from . Justice Namit Kumar delivered the verdict in Mohan Lal (deceased) through LRs v. A.E.E./T & S.W. Workshop, H.S.E.B. Colony (now UHBVN) (RSA No. 3427 of 1998) and a connected writ petition ( ), overturning discriminatory treatment that favored his disabled juniors.
The court not only restored the trial court's decree but also ordered arrears with 6% interest, full , and assistance to his legal representatives under the —within four months.
A Shocking Accident on the Job
Mohan Lal joined (now UHBVN) as a daily wager in , rising to T-Mate by . On , while repairing an electric pole in Karnal, he suffered a life-altering accident: his left leg was amputated. Treated at PGI Chandigarh until , he resumed duties as medically fit on .
During recovery, the Sub Divisional Officer at Indri offered him a regular ALM post on —an admission later echoed in UHBVN's own filings. But the Executive Engineer, Suburban Division No.1, Karnal, cancelled it on , without reason. A later Helper Grade-II offer in was also withdrawn. Instead, Mohan Lal was relegated to T-Mate on from —a lower rung he accepted amid ongoing struggles.
Juniors like Bir Singh (80% handicapped), Jagdish (amputated arm and leg), Vasudev (90% disabled), and Kasturi Lal (both arms amputated) were promoted to ALM/Helper Grade-I around the same time. Mohan Lal filed suit for declaration and promotion, which the trial court ( ) granted on . The reversed it on , citing his acceptance of work-charge re-employment and compensation.
Appellant's Plea: Equality Over Excuses
Mohan Lal's counsel argued the 1988 regular offer entitled him to ALM status and benefits, especially since juniors got promotions despite similar disabilities. They invoked , barring denial of promotion for in-service disability, and cited Bhagwan Dass v. (2008) for protecting rights post-disability. Even the 1992 Helper offer reinforced his claim, they said, rejecting work-charge as inadequate.
Department's Defense: Work-Charge Acceptance Seals Fate
UHBVN countered that Mohan Lal accepted T-Mate work-charge post (Ex.D1) with an undertaking to withdraw claims, plus Rs. 69,500 compensation. Regularization was never formalized, they argued, barring further relief or under 2006 rules limited to regulars.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: ' ' Discrimination Exposed
Justice Kumar meticulously sifted facts: the 1988 ALM offer was undisputed, higher than work-charge T-Mate, and juniors' promotions proved arbitrariness. No justification explained treating Mohan Lal differently—his cancellation was "unsubstantial" and " ."
Dismissing the appellate court's "uncalled for" incapacity remarks and erroneous limitation finding (unraised at trial), the HC held: the department's actions violated Articles 14 and 16's equality pillars. Precedents like Bhagwan Dass bolstered protection for service-incurred disabilities, ensuring promotion rights.
The writ claim succeeded too: from 1988, heirs qualify for .
Key Observations from the Bench
"such an unsubstantial act of the respondents-department in discriminating the plaintiff is wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the act of the respondents-department in discriminating and ignoring the plaintiff in amanner is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the principles of equality and fairness enshrined in."
"once the plaintiff was admittedly offered appointment as ALM on regular basis on 16.08.1988, which is a higher post than that of T-mate (work charge), he became entitled to appointment/promotion to the said post along with all consequential benefits"
"the respondents have failed to place on record any plausible justification for treating the appellant-plaintiff differently from other similarly situated employees."
Justice Served, Legacy Secured
The HC partly allowed both cases on , affirming the trial decree: treat Mohan Lal as regular ALM , notionally, with arrears at 6% interest and retiral dues (beyond the meager Rs. 72,600 leave and Rs. 1,46,000 gratuity paid). follows for LRs.
This ruling sets a precedent: offers of regular posts can't be whimsically withdrawn, especially discriminating against duty-injured disabled workers while uplifting juniors. For UHBVN and similar PSUs, it's a reminder—equality isn't optional. For disabled employees, it's hope: service shouldn't punish sacrifice.
(Case decided by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar; Advocates: for appellant, , , for respondents.)
