Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits

“The law must bend toward inclusion, lest the specially-abled citizen be left standing outside the doors of opportunity to which the Constitution has already given him a key” – In a significant judgment affirming the substantive rights of persons with disabilities under the Constitution and the statutory scheme of reservations, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on December 1, 2025, in Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana and Others (CWP No. 15259 of 2024), set aside an administrative order rejecting retrospective promotion claims of a visually impaired government employee. Justice Sandeep Moudgil allowed the writ petition, directing the State to accord notional promotions to the petitioner, Bhim Singh, from 2003 and 2013 respectively, under the 1% quota for blindness/low vision—along with all consequential benefits, including arrears, pay fixation, and seniority, with 6% interest per annum.

At the heart of the ruling lies the Court’s powerful reaffirmation that “equality is not a mechanical formula but a human commitment,” and that bureaucratic delay or administrative apathy cannot be allowed to nullify fundamental rights or statutory entitlements.

“Bureaucratic Delay Cannot Defeat Statutory Rights Flowing From Disability Laws” – Court Reaffirms Binding Nature of Disability Quota

The petitioner, Bhim Singh, a visually impaired employee working as a Mali in the Forest Department since 1998, became eligible for promotion to Forest Guard in 2003 and to Forester in 2013. However, he was only promoted in 2007 and 2021, respectively, after specific relaxations in service rules were granted by the Government. Citing the 1995 Act and the 2016 Act, the petitioner sought retrospective promotions with full consequential benefits under the disability reservation quota.

The dispute arose after the petitioner’s representation for retrospective promotion was rejected by the Additional Chief Secretary via order dated April 16, 2024. The rejection was premised on the reasoning that the relaxations granted to him operated prospectively, and that the field-level posts in the Forest Department required physical fitness and visual standards, making him ineligible at the time of his initial eligibility.

Justice Moudgil rejected this reasoning in no uncertain terms, observing that “the denial of such consideration was contrary to statutory mandate and constitutional principle,” and holding that the petitioner was entitled to retrospective promotion under the disability quota from the dates he became eligible.

The Court’s Reasoning: Constitutional, Statutory and Administrative Framework

The Court invoked the constitutional guarantees of Articles 14 and 16, and the statutory provisions of Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, carried forward under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court held that these provisions impose affirmative obligations on the State to reserve at least 3% of vacancies—including 1% for persons with visual disabilities—and to ensure the operation of such reservation annually, with unfilled vacancies to be carried forward.

Quoting from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, the High Court emphasized that “the principle of reasonable accommodation is one of the means for achieving substantive equality,” and that disability as a barrier often arises not from the individual’s condition but from the structural inaccessibility of institutions.

The Court also cited Government of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta, (2010) 7 SCC 626, to underscore that reservation cannot be diluted by failing to identify posts or by failing to exempt posts via proper statutory procedure.

Importantly, the Court dismissed the State’s argument that physical and visual requirements disqualified the petitioner. It was held that “in the absence of a valid exemption under the proviso to Section 33 of the 1995 Act, the reservation continues to apply in full measure.” The Court noted that no formal notification of exemption had been issued; only a pending proposal existed, which was legally insufficient.

The Government's own instructions dated 11.07.2023, which explicitly extended retrospective application of disability reservation from 01.01.1996 to 18.04.2017, were held to be binding. The Court found that the authorities failed to apply these instructions in the petitioner’s case, rendering the impugned order unsustainable.

Substantive Equality Must Prevail: Notional Promotions with Full Benefits Granted

Holding that “the right to be considered for promotion is an integral facet of Article 16,” the Court declared that Singh’s case should have been considered for promotion to Forest Guard in 2003 and Forester in 2013 under the 1% disability quota. The fact that promotions were eventually granted in 2007 and 2021, after relaxation of rules, could not erase the legal entitlement that crystallized years earlier.

“Equality,” Justice Moudgil noted, “must be substantive, not merely formal. When statutory rights meant to level an uneven field are allowed to wither by bureaucratic indifference, the Court must intervene not out of sentiment, but out of respect to the Constitution’s ethic.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 and allowed the petition, directing the State to:

• Accord notional promotion to Bhim Singh as Forest Guard from 2003 and Forester from 2013

• Grant all consequential benefits, including seniority, arrears, and pay fixation

• Pay interest at 6% per annum on all financial dues from the date they became due until realisation

• Ensure compliance within four weeks

This judgment stands as a vital reiteration of the judiciary’s constitutional duty to enforce the rights of marginalized communities, especially persons with disabilities, against systemic exclusion. By acknowledging that equality demands active dismantling of institutional barriers rather than passive non-discrimination, the Court has reinforced the vision of both the Constitution and the disability rights regime.

As Justice Moudgil eloquently summarized:
“The measure of a compassionate State is not how it treats the strong, but how it uplifts those whom circumstance has made vulnerable.”

Date of Decision: 01 December 2025