Disabled Lineman Denied Promotion While Juniors Advanced: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Retrospective ALM Regularisation & Ex-Gratia Benefits
Case Name: Mohan Lal (deceased) through LRs v. The A.E.E./T & S.W. Workshop, H.S.E.B. Colony (now U.H.B.V.N.), Karnal and Others; Nirmala Devi (deceased) through LRs v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Another
Date of Judgment: 03 February 2026
Citation: RSA No.3427 of 1998 & CWP No.1076 of 2011
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an employee who acquired disability during service cannot be denied promotion or regular appointment when similarly situated juniors were promoted. Withdrawal of an offer of regular appointment without justification amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court further held that once the employee is treated as regular retrospectively, his legal representatives are entitled to consequential retiral and ex-gratia benefits.
Summary: The Regular Second Appeal and connected writ petition arose from the service dispute of Mohan Lal, who joined the Electricity Board in May 1980 as a daily wager and was promoted as T-mate on 15.12.1982. On 21.04.1988, while repairing an electric pole during duty, he met with an accident resulting in amputation of his left leg. He remained under treatment at PGI, Chandigarh until 13.03.1989 .
During his treatment, he was offered regular appointment as Assistant Lineman (ALM) on 16.08.1988, which was later cancelled on 27.09.1988. After being declared medically fit, he rejoined duties on 16.04.1989. In 1992, he was offered appointment as Helper Grade-II, which too was withdrawn, and instead he was appointed as T-mate on work charge basis .
The Trial Court decreed his suit, directing promotion to the post of ALM or grant of monetary benefits. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree holding that he had accepted re-employment as T-mate and received compensation of ₹69,500/- for the accident, and therefore was not entitled to further claim .
Before the High Court, it was demonstrated that several juniors who were similarly or even more severely disabled—such as Bir Singh (80% disability), Jagdish Singh (110% disability), Vasudev (90% disability), and Kasturi Lal (100% disability)—were promoted to the post of ALM. The respondents admitted that Mohan Lal had indeed been offered regular appointment as ALM on 16.08.1988 .
The Court held that once such offer was made, and when similarly situated juniors were promoted, denial of promotion to the plaintiff was arbitrary and discriminatory. The observations of the First Appellate Court regarding his incapacity were termed unwarranted. The Court further held that the withdrawal of promotion without justification violated equality principles under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution .
Since Mohan Lal died during pendency of proceedings, and his wife (who had filed the writ petition seeking ex-gratia benefits under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006) also passed away, their legal representatives were held entitled to consequential benefits .
Decision: Both cases were partly allowed. The judgment of the First Appellate Court was set aside and the Trial Court’s decree was restored. The respondents were directed to treat Mohan Lal as regular ALM w.e.f. 16.08.1988 notionally and grant all consequential benefits including arrears with interest @ 6% per annum. The legal representatives were also held entitled to ex-gratia benefits under the 2006 Rules, to be released within four months.