State Cannot Fix Higher Disability Threshold (50%) for Allowances When Central Act Prescribes 40%: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“The persons with disability of 40% or above, constitute a class in themselves and further creation of a class in such homogenous group, would be arbitrary unless the classification is based on any intelligible differentia.”— In a seminal ruling the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, has read down Clause (iii) of Rule 22(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Allowances to Government Employees) Rules, 2016, declaring the requirement of 50% disability for conveyance allowance as unconstitutional and violative of the Central Disabilities Act.

The Court was adjudicating a writ petition filed by Nakul, a Work Supervisor in the P.W.D. (B. & R.) Department. The petitioner, suffering from 40% permanent locomotor disability (affecting both upper and lower limbs), was denied conveyance allowance. The State relied on Rule 22(1)(iii) of the 2016 Rules, which mandated a minimum of 50% disability for orthopaedically handicapped persons with impairment of both limbs to be eligible for the allowance.

The petitioner contended that this threshold was arbitrary and inconsistent with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act) and the 1995 Act, both of which define a "person with benchmark disability" as someone with not less than 40% of a specified disability.

“No provision in the Act of 2016 exists permitting creation of any separate class of differently abled persons with higher degree of disability of 50% or above in the matter of grant of particular benefit in employment.”

The Doctrine of Homogeneous Class

The Division Bench rejected the State's argument that it had the prerogative under Article 309 to regulate service conditions and identify specific categories for benefits. The Court held that once a person is certified with a benchmark disability (40%), they enter a homogeneous class protected by the Central legislation.

The Bench observed that the State failed to provide any intelligible differentia or rational nexus for fixing a 50% threshold for one category of disability while accepting 40% for others (such as those with disability in "either" limb under Clause (ii)). The Court termed this "selective affirmative action" as hostile discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

“Comparison of disabilities among ‘persons of disabilities’, without any rational basis, is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

Drawing reliance from the Supreme Court’s decision in Deaf Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India (2014), the High Court reiterated that benefits extended to one category of disabled employees cannot be denied to others without a valid basis. The Court emphasized that the 2016 Rules must align with the benevolent objective of the RPWD Act, 2016.

Consequently, the Court read down the impugned Rule. It held that all disabled employees of the State of Haryana with a valid certificate of 40% or more disability are entitled to conveyance allowance, rendering the 50% requirement ineffective.

“In order to save clause (iii) of Sub rule 1 of Rule 22 from the vice of hostile discrimination, we read down the said clause.”

The Court quashed the rejection memo dated 30.04.2024, noting that the medical authority had refused the recommendation solely based on the invalid statutory rule. The Respondents were directed to release the conveyance allowance along with interest @ 8% per annum. However, the arrears were restricted to 38 months prior to the filing of the writ petition.

Date of Decision: 24/12/2025