Dat Punjab State State Power Corporation Ltd and othe d others SUS v. ioners
Case Details
CWP-11291 291-2025 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 235 Jaswinder Sin der Singh CWP-11291-2025 , 2025 Date of Decision: August 08, 2025 Dat Punjab State State Power Corporation Ltd and othe d others SUS VERSUS ioners .....Petitioners .....Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Pawan Kumar Sr. Advoc Advocate for the petitioner. umar, Advocate with Mr. Vidushi Kumar, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advoc PSPCL. Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AA ha, AAG, Punjab. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 and 2- **** HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has be 6/227 has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Consti Constitution of India for issuance of a tiorari ce of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing shing of the speaking order dated 11 ted 11.03.2025 (Annexure P-18) an ) and further praye prayed for issuance of a writ in the ecting in the nature of mandamus directing respondents dents No.1 and 2 to promote the pet sistant he petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer, El er, Electrical in the 4% quota under short under physically handicap (in short ‘PH’) catego category as juniors of the petitioner h ted on ioner have already been promoted on 16.07.2023 (A 023 (Annexure P-5). 2. Learned counsel for the petition at the petitioner inter alia contends that the juniors to th to the petitioner have been promote er has romoted, whereas, the petitioner has been denied t enied the promotion to the post of Assi meant of Assistant Engineer Electrical meant for persons w rsons with disabilities in view of Se hts of of Sections 33 and 34 of Rights of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.25 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11291 291-2025 2 Persons with s with Disabilities Act, 2016 (in short of the short ‘RPWD Act’). The case of the petitioner is i ner is identical with the other persons in the rsons who have been promoted in the physically ha ally handicap category. Initially the p to the the petitioner was appointed to the post of Jun f Junior Engineer under the Sch n the e Schedule Class category in the respondent- -Corporation on 17.06.2014. Ther with a . Thereafter, the petitioner met with a motor vehicl vehicle accident and has suffered ser ed the serious injuries which caused the petitioner’s p ner’s permanent disability to the exten tioner extent of 75 per cent. The petitioner has been iss en issued a disability certificate on edical te on 18.10.2019, by Chief Medical Officer, Sang r, Sangrur (Annexure P-3). Further, o nt- ther, on 26.02.2021, the respondent Corporation p ation published a tentative seniority l tes, in ority list of technical subordinates, in which the p the petitioner was placed at Sr. N ersons Sr. No.612, whereas, three persons namely Sh.A Sh.Amardeep Singh, Sh. Sonu Sha were u Sharma and Sh.Amar Singh were placed at Sr. at Sr. Nos. 638, 660 and 629 respecti d vide pectively, have been promoted vide office order order No.140/BEG-I, dated 16.07.20 dicap .07.2023 under physically handicap category, leav ry, leaving behind the petitioner. 3. Further, being aggrieved, peti ultiple , petitioner had submitted multiple representation ntations for seeking similar benefit a uniors efit as has been granted to the juniors of the petit petitioner in the handicap catego tioner category. Thereafter, the petitioner approached th ched this Court by filing CWP No.318
Decision
order o.31808 of 2024 and vide final order dated 26.11. 26.11.2024 this Court has directed ion to ected the respondent-Corporation to consider and er and decide the claim made by the p dated the petitioner in representation dated 27.08.2024 in 024 in accordance with law, by passin er, the passing a speaking order. Further, the petitioner has ner has laid a specific reliance upon the Court pon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP-201 20174 of 2023, Sukhmandar Sing wer Singh Versus Punjab State Power Corporation tion Limited and others rendered resaid red on 23.08.2024 in the aforesaid PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.25 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11291 291-2025 3 representation ntation. However, while passing the s lly no g the speaking order, enigmatically no reference has ce has been made to the judgment rel to ent relied upon by the petitioner or to the specific ecific instances and the judicial pr y the cial precedents relied upon by the petitioner. R ner. Rather, it has been conveyed to aking yed to the petitioner in the speaking order that th that the Government of Punjab has letter has sought clarification vide letter dated 22.06.2 2.06.2023 from the Government of In opting t of India, that the matter of adopting the instructio tructions issued by Govt. of India, w at the ndia, whereby it was stated that the persons who s who acquired disability during his to get ng his/her service is entitled to get benefits of re s of reservation as a PwD is still un s case till under consideration and his case would be co be considered for the promotion aft ceived on after the clarification is received from the Gov e Government of Punjab (Annexure P in the xure P-18). Further, it is stated in the Annexure P ure P-18 at para-10 that no person ju been son junior to the petitioner has been promoted und ted under schedule caste category. 4. Learned counsel further refers refers to representations (Annexures ures P-8 and P P-12) and his representation wa gineer on was sent to Executive Engineer Distribution ution Division, Sunam vide Endst N 9 for ndst No.4764 dated 13.11.2019 for further neces necessary action. Thereafter, commu en the ommunication was made between the concerned au ned authorities of the respondent-Cor of the Corporation regarding entry of the petitioner in ner in handicap category in the seni 0, the e seniority list. On 11.02.2020, the Superintendin ntending Engineer, Distribution Circle enior Circle, Sangrur sent letter to Senior Executive E ive Engineer, Distribution Divisi Division, Sunam, demanding the the documents to ents to prepare the tentative seniori gineer eniority list of the Junior Engineer (Elect.) for th ) for the period w.e.f 01.05.2010 to 31 under to 31.12.2012, regarding entry under handicapped apped category in seniority list of peti rther, of petitioner (Annexure P-9). Further, communicati nication was addressed from Assistan PCL, ssistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.25 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11291 291-2025 4 Distribution S ution Sub-Division Longowal to Seni unam, o Senior Executive Engineer, Sunam, Udham Sing Singh Wala stating therein that pet at petitioner fall under 14% AMIE MIE/ B.Tech Degr Degree quota and on completion o in the tion of three years of service in the month of Oc of October, 2017, the documents we tative nts were sent to prepare the tentative seniority list ty list of the degree holder Technic period echnical Subordinates for the period w.e.f. 01.01. 01.01.2017 to 30.06.2017 (under S bution nder SC category) by Distribution Division, Dh n, Dhuri to Distribution Circle, Ba r has le, Barnala and now petitioner has submitted h ted his certificate regarding 75% h his 75% disability along with his representation ntation. Further, communication add nding on addressed by the Superintending Engineer, D er, Distribution Circle, Sangrur to Jo atiala r to Joint Secretary, PSPCL, Patiala dated 28.08.2 28.08.2024 acknowledging the receip g the receipt of documents regarding the entry of petiti f petitioner in the handicapped categor ategory of the seniority list. 5. Moreover, the petitioner has sp culars has specifically given the particulars of the juniors juniors to him, who had been promote apped omoted in the physically handicapped category on ry on 16.07.2023 (Annexure P has re P-4). Further, petitioner has demonstrated strated his disability and also with re ons as ith regard to the communications as well as repre representations (Annexure P-8 to P ritten to P-12 respectively). In the written statement fil ent filed by the respondent-Corporat denial rporation there is no specific denial either to the to the promotions of the juniors of pet t or to of petitioner in the tentative list or to the averment rments contained in paras 6 and 9 o r, the d 9 of the writ petition. Further, the justification g ation given in the reply by introducing not be ducing new grounds, which cannot be relied upon in pon in view of the settled law. 6. Learned Senior counsel furthe r has further submits that petitioner has acquired disa d disability while in service and his ju tative his juniors mentioned in the tentative list have bee ve been promoted in the physically h arned cally handicapped category. Learned PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.25 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11291 291-2025 5 Senior couns counsel for the petitioner has relied u cases elied upon the judgments in the cases of (1) Kunal unal Singh Versus Union of India a 524, dia and another, 2003(4) SCC 524, (2) Malkit Si it Singh Versus State of Punjab an c Id # b and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 2322245, (3) 5, (3) Bhagwan Dass and another V icity er Versus Punjab State Electricity Board 2008( 008(1) SCC 579, (4) State of Kerala ma erala and others Versus Leesamma Joseph 2021( 021(9)SCC 208, (5) Rajeev Kumar nion ar Gupta and others Versus Union of India and and others 2016(13) SCC 153, (6 rsus (6) Poonam Manchanda Versus Union of Ind f India and others, Law Finder Doc ndar er Doc Id #2007224 (7) Sukhmandar Singh Versus ersus Punjab State Power Corporat WP- oration Limited and others, CWP 20174-2023, 023, date of decision 23.08.2024. 7. Per contra, Mr. Bhanu Partap enting Partap Singh, Advocate representing respondents dents No.2 and 3 per contra submit of the submits that firstly the claim of the petitioner ca ner cannot be accepted, as the disa is not e disability of the petitioner is not identifiable, iable, secondly he has not applied egory. plied in the handicapped category. Further, no e r, no employee juniors to the petitione been etitioner in the SC category had been promoted. E ted. Even if the case of the petiti er the petitioner is considered under the physically ha ally handicapped category one more p Singh ore person namely Manjinder Singh who is senio senior to the petitioner, is yet to be ically to be promoted under the physically handicap cate ap category. OBSERVAT RVATION AND ANALYSIS 8. Hav Having heard the learned counsel fo rusing nsel for the parties and after perusing the record w ord with their able assistance, the p in the the primary issue that arises in the present case i t case is whether the petitioner is entitl he PH entitled to be promoted under the PH category in ry in light of the fact even though ability ough he has acquired the disability during his se is service and not at the time of appo f appointment. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.25 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11291 291-2025 6 9. The above issue is no longer ettled nger Res integra, having been settled by a catena o tena of authoritative pronouncements Court. ments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, be er, before referring to the judgem tutory judgements, the relevant statutory provisions in ons in this regard must be considere s with sidered. Section 47 of Persons with ties Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Prote Full Protection of Rights and Full Participation) pation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter ‘1995 ed by ‘1995 Act’), which is replaced by Section 20 20 of the RPWD Act 2016, pr gainst 16, prohibits discrimination against Disabled per ed persons in matters of Governmen 47 is ernment Employment. Section 47 is reproduced h uced hereinunder: “47. establi who ac 7. Non-discrimination in Govern tablishment shall dispense with, or o acquires a disability during his se No vernment Employment - (1) No oyee , or reduce in rank, an employee is service: Provid for the the sam ovided that, if an employee, after ac r the post he was holding, could be e same pay scale and service benefits r acquiring disability is not suitable able with d be shifted to some other post with nefits: Provid agains suitabl whiche ovided further that if it is not po ainst any post, he may be kept on itable post is available or he attai ichever is earlier. t possible to adjust the employee oyee til a t on a supernumerary post until a tion, attains the age of superannuation, No promotion shall be denied to a d of to a person merely on the ground of (2) No his dis s disability: Provid type subjec notific section ovided that the appropriate Govern of work carried on in any esta bject to such conditions, if any, tification, exempt any establishme ction.” (emphasis supplied) the vernment may, having regard to the establishment, by notification and and such ny, as may be specified in such this hment from the provisions of this 10. Likewise, Section 20 of the RPW that a RPWD Act, 2016 also states that a promotion ca tion cannot be denied to a person mer bility. n merely on the ground of disability. A Two-Judg Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supre h v. Supreme Court in Kunal Singh v. Union of Ind f India, 2003 (1) SCT 1029, speaki raj V. speaking through Justice Shivaraj V. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.25 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CWP-11291 291-2025 Patil has held held as follows: “8. Ch with di falls in service in min definit settled definin terms acquir disabil 47 of t protec depend Section part of in ran The S disabil to som not po a supe the ag promo disabil contain reduce service too de opport advanc preferr purpos casting acquir . Chapter VI of the Act deals with th disabilities, who are yet to secure lls in Chapter VIII, deals with an rvice and acquires a disability durin mind that Section 2 of the Act h finitions of "disability" and "pers ttled that in the same enactment if tw fining a word/expression, they mus rms of the definition. It must be rem quire or suffer disability by choic sability during his service, is sough of the Act specifically. Such emplo otected, would not only suffer hims pend on him would also suffer. Th ction 47 clearly indicate its manda rt of Section reads "no establishmen rank, an employee who acquires a e Section further provides that if sability is not suitable for the post h some other post with the same pay s t possible to adjust the employee aga supernumerary post until a suitable e age of superannuation, whicheve omotion shall be denied to a perso sability as is evident from sub-sectio ntains a clear directive that the emp duce in rank an employee who ac rvice. In construing a provision of s o dealing with disabled persons portunities, protection of rights and vances the object of the Act and eferred to the one which obstructs rpose of the Act. Language of Se sting statutory obligation on the em quiring disability during service.” sons ith employment relating to persons hich cure employment. Section 47, which h an employee, who is already in y in orne uring his service. It must be borne ct has given distinct and different rent person with disability". It is well well iven t if two distinct definitions are given must be understood accordingly in ly in not e remembered that person does not ires hoice. An employee, who acquires ught to be protected under Section tion f not mployee, acquiring disability, if not himself, but possibly all those who who r. The very frame and contents of s of ning andatory nature. The very opening ment shall dispense with, or reduce duce ice". es a disability during his service". ring at if an employee after acquiring ost he was holding, could be shifted ifted it is ay scale and service benefits; if it is t on e against any post he will be kept on ains table post is available or he attain s no hever is earlier. Added to this no erson merely on the ground of his f his ection (2) of Section 47. Section 47 n 47 h or employer shall not dispense with or o acquires a disability during the the that of social beneficial enactment that qual ons intended to give them equal nd full participation, the view that that t be and serves its purpose must be ructs the object and paralyses the the f Section 47 is plain and certain tain oyee e employer to protect an employee (emphasis supplied) 11. The judgement in Kunal Sin ed in Singh (supra) was followed in Bhagwan D n Dass v. Punjab State Electricit 990. tricity Board, 2008 AIR SC 990 Further, in r, in Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union o , a ion of India, (2016) 13 SCC 153, a PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.25 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11291 291-2025 8 Two-Judge B udge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme ustice reme Court speaking through Justice Chelameswar eswar observed as follows: “24. A explica admini PWD. identif identif functio capabl three p reserve the Sta 4. A combined reading of Section plicates a fine and designed bala ministration and the imperative to p D. Therefore, as detailed in the entification exercise under Section entified, it means that a PWD is fu nctions associated with the identifi pable, reservation under Section 3 ree per cent must follow. Once the served for PWD irrespective of the m e State for filling up of the said post ctions 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act Act s of balance between requirements of s to to provide greater opportunities to the first part of our analysis, the the st is tion 32 is crucial. Once a post is is fully capable of discharging the the ntified post. Once found to be so e so than n 33 to an extent of not less than e the post is identified, it must be t be d by the mode of recruitment adopted by ost.” (emphasis supplied) 12. In The State of Kerala v. Lee SC Leesamma Joseph, 2021 AIR SC 3076, a Two a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Su rough ’ble Supreme Court speaking through Justice S.K. K S.K. Kaul held that: “27. N appoin is no would Consti in the appoin The an State i proces materi a prom entry p benefit what i consid distinc accoun after h with t compa 7. Now coming to the question of th pointed in the quota for PwD in the no dispute about the benchmark d uld be discriminatory and viola nstitution of India if the respondent the PwD quota on this pretext. O pointed, she is to be identically plac e anomaly which would arise from t ate is apparent - a person who came ocess but suffers disability after jo ateria position be also not entitled to promotional post reserved for a PwD try point is treated as determinative nefits. Source of recruitment ought at is material is that the employ nsideration for promotion. The stinction between a person who count of disability and a person wh ter having entered the service. Simila th the person who may have ent mpassionate appointment. The mode ially of the respondent not being initially the feeder cadre, we note that there here ark disability of the respondent. It It the violative of the mandate of the dent is not considered for promotion tion xt. Once the respondent has been been dre. placed as others in the PwD cadre. lant- om the submission of the appellant ent ame in through normal recruitment pari er joining service would on a pari ed to be considered to a vacancy in y in f the PwD. This is the consequence if the tive of the entitlement to avail of the f the ght not to make any difference but but for ployee is a PwD at the time for he 1995 Act does not make a e a on ho may have entered service on ility n who may have acquired disability imilarly, the same position would be d be of a entered service on a claim of a be a mode of entry in service cannot be a PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.25 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11291 291-2025 9 ound to make out a case of discrim phasis criminatory promotion.” (emphasis ground supplied) supplie 13. Most recently, a two-Judge Be preme dge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.H C.H Joseph v. The Telangana State tion, State Road Transport Corporation, 2025 INSC 9 SC 920, speaking through Justice Ar ice Aravind Kumar observed that: “35. framew duty of to pres not pe certific redepl constit 5. When a disability is acquired in mework must respond not with exc ty of a public employer is not merely preserve human potential where it c t permit the severance of service tificate without first exhausting deployment. Such obligation is not nstitutional discipline and statutory egal d in the course of service, the legal exclusion but with adjustment. The The , but erely to discharge functionaries, but does e it continues to exist. The law does rvice by the stroke of a medical ical ing the possibility of meaningful gful t in not rooted in compassion, but in tory expectation. 36. In clarifie althou still be do oth underm employ . In light of this evolving doctrine, ified that employees with cond though not falling within the defined ll be accommodated wherever their otherwise would result in a regre dermining the very foundation of ployment. him ine, the Court in Mohamed Ibrahim conditions like colour blindness, ess, must fined categories of the statute, must heir functional capacity permits. To . To egressive interpretation of the law, law, blic n of equal opportunity in public 37. Th enforc claim the ab disabil retired reassig employ constit non-di . Thus, even though in the prese forceable right under a statutory in aim on firmer footing—we find it ne e absence of such contractual ri sabilities during service must not tired without being afforded a fair assignment. The obligation to re ployees is not just a matter of nstitutional and statutory imperati discrimination, dignity, and equal an resent case the Appellant had an y industrial settlement—placing his his necessary to reaffirm that even in n in uire l rights, employees who acquire not be abandoned or prematurely rely for fair and reasonable opportunity for such o reasonably accommodate such r of administrative grace, but a t a s of rative, rooted in the principles of qual treatment. . This Court, therefore, affirms gislation must not be diluted by n otections offered therein must be e e livelihood, dignity and service quire disabilities during employme ndicate the Appellant’s rights but a mmitment to a just and humane em 38. T legisla protec the liv acquir vindica commi (emphasis supplied) (empha dial ms that beneficial and remedial the by narrow interpretation, and the be extended purposively to protect tect who ice continuity of employees who only yment. In doing so, we not only ut also reaffirm our constitutional onal .” e employer-employee relationship. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.25 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11291 291-2025 10 14. From the above-mentioned judg d judgments, it is clear that the benefi enefit of reservation rvation in promotion under the PH ca d only PH category cannot be confined only to those who e who are inducted in service in the P uch as the PH category. Employees such as the petitioner itioner, who acquire disability during tled to ring their service are also entitled to be considered sidered for promotion against the avai mane e available disabled quota. A humane approach is ch is imperative in such cases, for ires a s, for an employee who acquires a disability dur ity during the course of service is enti ection is entitled to protection under Section 47 of the 199 he 1995 Act or, as the case may be, PwD y be, under Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016. A 016. As observed by the Hon’ble S such ’ble Supreme Court, denial of such protection wo ion would not only cause undue hard t also e hardship to the employee but also inflict sufferi suffering upon the dependents who re nance. who rely on him for their sustenance. In light of the t of the clear enunciation of law, the so er the , the sole consideration is whether the employee sto ee stood disabled at the time of promo promotion. 15. In the instant case, the petition ability etitioner has been issued a disability certificate on ate on 18.10.2019, by Chief Medical O 3) dical Officer, Sangrur (Annexure P-3) stating that h that his case is of ‘Locomotor Disab anent r Disability.’ He has 75% permanent disability in r ity in relation to his left upper limb. Th arned mb. Thus, the argument of the learned l for counsel for the Respondents that the petitioner’s disability the s not is not ‘identifiable’ fiable’ cannot be accepted. Furtherm their rthermore, the Respondents in their written statem statement have not specifically denie s who denied the fact that employees who were junior unior to the petitioner have been pro gory en promoted under the PH category vide order dt rder dt. 16.07.2023 (Annexure P-5). R el for 5). Rather, the learned Counsel for the Respond spondents has curiously argued tha to the ed that no employee junior to the petitioner in t ner in the SC category had been promo promoted. 16. The Respondents vide the im dated he impugned speaking order dated PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.25 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11291 291-2025 11 11.03.2025 (A 025 (Annexure P-18) conveyed to th ion of to the petitioner that the question of whether a pe r a person who acquired disability d to get ility during service is entitled to get benefits of re s of reservation as a PwD is still under s case l under consideration and that his case will be consi considered for promotion after the cl m the the clarification is received from the State Govern overnment. This Court is of the opini by the e opinion that any clarification by the Government ment cannot supersede the legislativ n this islative and judicial mandate in this regard. Sectio . Section 47 of the 1995 Act and Sect , 2016 d Section 20 of the RPWD Act, 2016 expressly sta sly state that no establishment shall di rank, hall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee ployee who acquires a disability du at no during his service and that no promotion sh tion shall be denied to a person merely bility. merely on the ground of his disability. Further, the r, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has c ployer has clearly held that the Employer cannot draw draw a distinction between employees er the loyees who entered service under the PH category tegory and those who acquired disab ervice d disability in the course of service especially in lly in the matters of promotion. 17. Further, of the contention of the t r learned counsel for the the Respondents dents that the Petitioner did not a er the not apply for promotion under the handicapped apped category cannot be sustained at the tained. The record reflects that the Petitioner ha ner had submitted multiple represen fit of presentations seeking the benefit of promotion, w tion, which was in fact extended to h y. ed to his juniors in the PH category. Despite havi e having several opportunities to con m for to consider the Petitioner’s claim for promotion un tion under the PH category, the Resp m the Respondents failed to grant him the benefit. The c . The contention of the learned counse ted in counsel is also liable to be rejected in view of the j f the judgment of a co-ordinate Benc 3403- Bench of this Court in CWP-3403 2015 titled as tled as Vinod Kumar v. Dakshin Hary isar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Hisar and others, d , decided on 02.08.2016, which ha etters ich has attained finality as the Letters PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.25 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11291 291-2025 12 Patent Appea Appeal as well as the Special Leave aving Leave Petition filed against it having been dismisse ismissed. The operative part of the said he said judgment, reads as follows: “4. Th he did i.e. Ju premis will be the pet promo in the case, discrim seniori dispute no arg revised matter his jun . The only reason assigned to deny did not submit his representation fo . July 31, 2011. This is a speciou emise that one must ask for promot ll be denied consideration. Since a e petitioner are in his service book omoting authority it remains under the DPC for its consideration to m se, in the matter of seniority and scrimination in passing by names wi niority is a shared right with others. sputed that respondents No.5 & 6 a argument or defence that the petit vised ranking list of 2011 after he atter. The petitioner has been wrong s juniors were considered and promo eny the petitioner promotion is that that on for promotion by the cut off date date oper ecious plea based on an improper omotion like a beggar otherwise he e he g to ce all the material facts relating to f the ook and available in custody of the der bounden duty to place his name ame any to make recommendations. In any no and promotions there can be no s without valid reason. The right to t to not hers. In the impugned order it is not 6 are junior to the petitioner. It is It is petitioner's name was added in the the the r he made a representation in the hen rongly ignored for promotion when romoted.” (emphasis supplied) 18. Moreover, the additional groun ed by grounds now sought to be urged by the Respond spondents to justify the denial of p t find l of promotion, which do not find mention in th n in the impugned speaking order date 18), er dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P-18), cannot be ta be taken into consideration. It is w itution t is well settled by the Constitution Bench of the of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in hief rt in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Com Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 order 405, that the validity of an order must be test e tested on the reasons stated ther ot be d therein, and the same cannot be supplemented mented or improved upon by fresh re its or esh reasons advanced in affidavits or otherwise. Pa ise. Para 8 of the judgement is reprodu eproduced hereinunder: “8. Th functio must supple Otherw court o later b The second equally relevant ma nctionary makes an order based o ust be judged by the reasons s pplemented by fresh reasons in the therwise, an order bad in the beginn urt on account of a challenge, get v ter brought out. We may here draw tory t matter is that when a statutory ed on certain grounds, its validity idity be ns so mentioned and cannot be the shape of affidavit or otherwise. ise. ginning may, by the time it comes to es to unds get validated by additional grounds s of raw attention to the observations of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.25 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11291 291-2025 13 Bose, J se, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji: “Public orders, publicly mad authority cannot be construed subsequently given by the office meant, or of what was in his m Public orders made by public public effect and are intended to of those to whom they are add objectively with reference to th itself.” made, in exercise of a statutory tory rued in the light of explanations ions t he fficer making the order of what he is mind, or what he intended to do do. have blic authorities are meant to have duct ed to affect the actings and conduct addressed and must be construed rued rder to the language used in the order rders are not like old wine becomi er.” oming better as they grow older.” Orders (emphasis supplied) (empha 19. In view of the foregoing discuss tion is discussion, the present writ petition is allowed. The d. The Petitioner, having acquired disa ntitled ed disability during service, is entitled to promotion motion under the PH category. Indu have Indubitably, the Respondents have made no den o denial regarding the suitability of th otion. ty of the petitioner for the promotion. Accordingly, ingly, the Respondents are directed to otion cted to grant the Petitioner promotion under the P the PH category, along with all from h all consequential benefits, from 16.07.2023, 023, i.e., the date on which the ju were the juniors of the petitioners were promoted und ted under the PH category within a per ate of n a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this of this order. 20. Pending miscellaneous applicat stands plication(s), if any, shall also stands ed of. disposed of. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE August 08, 2 P.C , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.25 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document