In a significant ruling on employee rights and disability protection, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has directed Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVN) to treat a deceased employee as a regular Assistant Lineman (ALM) from 16 August 1988 and release all consequential benefits with interest.
Justice Namit Kumar passed the order while deciding a long-pending Regular Second Appeal and a connected writ petition filed by the employee’s wife. The judgment was delivered on February 3, 2026.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Clears Way for Police Recruit, Says Minor, Quashed FIR Can’t Block Appointment
Background of the Case
Mohan Lal had joined the electricity department in May 1980 as a daily wager. He was later promoted as T-mate. In April 1988, while repairing an electric pole during duty, he suffered a serious accident that led to the amputation of his left leg.
While he was still under treatment, the department offered him appointment as Assistant Lineman (ALM) on regular basis on August 16, 1988. However, the offer was cancelled the following month. Later, in 1992, he was offered another post-Helper Grade-II-but that too did not materialise. Instead, he was re-employed as a T-mate on work-charge basis.
Mohan Lal filed a civil suit seeking promotion as ALM from 1988, arguing that several of his juniors-who were also disabled-had been promoted. The trial court ruled in his favour in 1997. But the first appellate court reversed that decision in 1998, holding that since he had accepted work-charge employment and compensation, he could not claim regular promotion.
After Mohan Lal’s death in 2009, his legal heirs pursued the matter. His wife also filed a writ petition seeking ex-gratia financial assistance under the 2006 state policy for dependents of deceased government employees.
Court’s Observations
Justice Namit Kumar carefully examined the record and noted that it was undisputed that Mohan Lal had been offered regular appointment as ALM on August 16, 1988. The department itself admitted this fact in its written statement in the connected writ petition .
The court found that similarly situated employees-Bir Singh, Jagdish, Vasudev and Kasturi Lal-who were also permanently disabled, had been promoted as ALMs.
“The act of the respondents-department in discriminating and ignoring the plaintiff in a pick and choose manner is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the principles of equality,” the bench observed.
The court also rejected the appellate court’s reasoning that Mohan Lal was incapable of field work due to disability. It termed those remarks “un-called for” and legally unsustainable.
Importantly, the High Court held that once the employee had been offered a higher post on regular basis, he became entitled to it along with all benefits. The subsequent cancellation, without proper justification, could not stand scrutiny.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clears Siddhartha Reddy in Actress Pratyusha Death Case, Says No Proof of Abetment
Linked Writ Petition for Ex-Gratia Benefits
In the connected writ petition, Mohan Lal’s wife sought financial assistance under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006.
The department had argued that since Mohan Lal was not a regular employee, his family was not entitled to ex-gratia benefits.
However, once the court concluded that he must be treated as a regular ALM from August 16, 1988, the foundation of the department’s objection collapsed.
The bench made it clear that the petitioner would now be entitled to consideration under the 2006 policy.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clears Siddhartha Reddy in Actress Pratyusha Death Case, Says No Proof of Abetment
The Decision
Allowing both matters partly, the High Court reversed the judgment of the first appellate court and restored the trial court’s findings .
The court directed UHBVN to:
- Treat Mohan Lal as a regular ALM from August 16, 1988 (on a notional basis),
- Grant all consequential benefits, including arrears,
- Pay interest at 6% per annum,
- Consider and release ex-gratia benefits to his legal heirs under the 2006 policy.
The entire exercise is to be completed within four months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.
With that, a legal battle that began nearly three decades ago reached its conclusion inside Courtroom 210.
Case Title: Mohan Lal (deceased) through LRs v. A.E.E./T & S.W. Workshop (UHBVN) & Anr.
Case No.: RSA No. 3427 of 1998 & CWP No. 1076 of 2011
Decision Date: 03 February 2026
