HC to examine Haryana transfer policy on differential marks for disabled employees

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a notice of motion to Haryana on petitions challenging the State’s transfer policy for awarding differential marks to employees with disabilities. Holding that the issue “requires consideration”, a Division Bench of the high court adjourned the matter to February 18, granting time to the State to file its reply.

The petitions placed before the Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor assail the transfer policy primarily on the ground that employees suffering from a disability of 40 per cent and above form a homogeneous class under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and awarding marks based on varying degrees of disability is impermissible. The petitioners contend that such differential marking violates the statutory scheme and the principle of equal treatment embedded in the act.

Advocate LK Gollen appeared for the petitioners in one of the cases, while senior advocate JS Toor, along with counsel Adhiraj Toor and Jasbir Singh represented other petitioners.

Recording the rival submissions, the court noted the argument that “employees suffering from a disability of 40 per cent and above constitute a homogeneous group, and therefore, the award of marks based upon the varying extent of disability contravenes the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.” Reliance was placed on an earlier judgment of the High Court in connected cases decided on November 6.

Opposing the challenge, the State maintained that the policy extended benefits to all employees with disabilities and it was within the government’s domain to grant additional marks to those with a higher extent 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 court observed: “Matter requires consideration.” It accordingly issued the notice of motion. Additional Advocate-General Pankaj Middha accepted the notice on behalf of the respondent-State and sought time to file a reply.