Punjab & Haryana High Court Reads Down Haryana Rule Denying Conveyance Allowance to Disabled Employees With 40% Disability; Holds Higher Threshold Ultra Vires Disability Laws

Case Name: Nakul v. State of Haryana and Others

Date of Judgment: 24 December 2025

Citation: CWP-12356-2024

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohit Kapoor

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court partly allowed a writ petition filed by an orthopaedically disabled government employee and held that Clause (iii) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of the Haryana Civil Services (Allowances to Government Employees) Rules, 2016, insofar as it restricts conveyance allowance to employees having 50% disability of both upper and lower limbs, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and contrary to the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court held that all disabled employees certified with 40% or more disability constitute a homogeneous class and cannot be subjected to artificial sub-classification for grant of service benefits.

Summary: The petitioner, an orthopaedically disabled employee of the Haryana Government, challenged the rejection of his claim for conveyance allowance solely on the ground that he did not meet the requirement of 50% disability under Clause (iii) of Rule 22 of the 2016 Rules. The petitioner was certified to be suffering from locomotor disability to the extent of 40% by a competent medical authority under the statutory disability framework.

The High Court examined the scheme and objectives of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and noted that both enactments recognise persons with 40% or more disability as a protected class entitled to affirmative action and service-related benefits. The Court held that the State cannot, through subordinate legislation, impose a higher disability threshold for grant of conveyance allowance when the parent statutes do not permit such differentiation.

The Court found no intelligible differentia or rational nexus for treating employees suffering from 40% disability of either limb differently from those having disability of both limbs. It was held that once disability is certified under the central enactments, the State is barred from creating further classifications within a homogeneous group of disabled persons. Reliance was placed on binding precedent of the Supreme Court holding that comparative evaluation of different disabilities for grant of benefits is impermissible.

The Court also rejected the State’s reliance on a medical recommendation denying conveyance allowance, holding that such recommendation was based entirely on the impugned rule and could not independently justify rejection once the rule itself was found to be discriminatory.

Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed. Clause (iii) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of the 2016 Rules was read down to extend conveyance allowance to all disabled employees having 40% or more disability. The impugned rejection order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to release conveyance allowance to the petitioner with interest at 8% per annum, subject to restriction of arrears to 38 months prior to filing of the petition.