Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Retrospective Promotions for Visually Impaired Forest Employee; Says Disability Quota Cannot Be Defeated by Administrative Delay
Case Name: Bhim Singh vs. State of Haryana & Others
Date of Judgment: 01 December 2025
Citation: CWP-15259-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a visually impaired Mali, later promoted as Forest Guard and Forester, was entitled to notional promotion from 2003 and 2013 respectively under the 1 percent reservation for persons with blindness or low vision. The Court set aside the rejection order of the Additional Chief Secretary, holding that the State failed to operate the disability quota in the relevant years and could not rely on later relaxations to justify denial of statutory rights.
Summary: The petitioner, appointed as Mali in 1998, became eligible for promotion to Forest Guard in 2003 and to Forester in 2013. He was eventually promoted in 2007 and 2021 only after the State granted specific relaxations. His request for retrospective promotion was rejected on the ground that relaxations operate prospectively and that field-level posts require physical fitness and visual standards.
The Court rejected these reasons, emphasising that Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 impose a mandatory obligation on the State to identify posts and operate reservation annually. The Haryana Government’s 2023 instructions expressly made horizontal reservation in promotions applicable from 1996 to 2017, fully covering the petitioner’s periods of eligibility.
The Court found that the State had neither identified nor filled disability-quota vacancies in the relevant years, nor issued any notification exempting Forest Guard or Forester posts from reservation. A mere proposal for exemption, it held, has no legal effect.
The Court underscored that disability-rights legislation embodies substantive equality and reasonable accommodation, citing principles from Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal. Administrative indifference cannot override statutory guarantees.
Decision: The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 16 April 2024, and directed the State to grant the petitioner notional promotion as Forest Guard from 2003 and as Forester from 2013, with full consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation and arrears. All monetary benefits will carry 6 percent interest from the date due. The State must implement the directions within four weeks.