Listen To This Post
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday issued a notice of motion to the Haryana Government on petitions challenging the State’s transfer policy that awards differential marks to employees with disabilities based on the extent of disability.
Holding that the issue “requires consideration”, a Division Bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor adjourned the matter to February 18, granting time to the State to file its response.
The petitions assail the transfer policy primarily on the ground that employees suffering from a disability of 40 per cent and above constitute a homogeneous class under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and that awarding marks based on varying degrees of disability is impermissible under the statutory framework. The petitioners contend that such differential marking violates both the scheme of the Act and the principle of equal treatment embedded in it.
Advocate LK Gollen appeared for the petitioners in one of the cases, while senior advocate JS Toor, assisted by counsel Adhiraj Toor and Jasbir Singh, represented the other petitioners.
Recording the submissions, the Bench noted the argument that employees with 40 per cent or more disability form a single class, and therefore, awarding additional marks based on the extent of disability runs contrary to the Act. Reliance was placed on an earlier judgment of the High Court in connected matters decided on November 6.
Opposing the challenge, the State defended the policy, asserting that benefits under the transfer policy had been extended to all employees with disabilities. It was argued that the government was within its अधिकार to award additional marks to those suffering from a higher degree of disability.
The court recorded the State’s stand that “all employees suffering from disability have been granted due benefit under the transfer policy, and that the State is at liberty to award additional marks to those suffering from a greater extent of disability.”
After hearing the preliminary submissions, the Bench observed that the matter warranted judicial examination and accordingly issued notice of motion. Additional Advocate-General Pankaj Middha accepted notice on behalf of the State and sought time to file a reply.
