Blind disability-quota appointee gets regular status and benefits from her first day on contract, High Court rules

Veena Devi, who has 100% permanent blindness, was selected for a Junior Office Assistant (Information Technology) post reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities.

She was appointed on contract on 15 September 2022 under the applicable 2017 Recruitment and Promotion Rules, which permitted contractual appointments; her services were regularized on 23 April 2025.

She sought recognition as a regular appointee from her initial appointment date, with consequential benefits.

The State opposed the claim on the ground that the applicable Rules expressly permitted contractual appointment, distinguishing Nitin Kumar.

Whether a person with a benchmark disability appointed against a disability-reserved post through the prescribed selection process may be treated as regularly appointed from the date of initial contractual appointment, where the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules permit contractual appointments.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to consequential service benefits for the period of contractual service.

The Court relied on Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, concerning identification of posts and reservation of vacancies for persons with disabilities; it applied Nitin Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which held that contractual appointment against disability-reserved posts does not fulfil the statutory purpose of reservation, and Umesh Jaswal v. State of H.P., which applied that principle even where the relevant Recruitment and Promotion Rules permitted contractual appointments.

The Court also relied on Devinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which recognized service benefits, including seniority, for a category of contract appointees selected through the procedure prescribed by the statutory Rules, and on Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh regarding the counting of contractual service for seniority and consequential benefits after regularization.

The State’s contention that the petitioner’s contractual appointment was valid under the 2017 Rules did not distinguish her claim from Umesh Jaswal: that case considered the same objection and held that permitting contractual appointments under the Rules did not defeat the protection owed to persons appointed against disability-reserved posts.

The State had also admitted that the petitioner was appointed against a reserved vacancy through the prescribed Rules and selection process.

The Court therefore held that she was entitled to regular status from her initial appointment date.

It further considered her appointment to fall within the category identified in Devinder Kumar—selection under the statutory Rules after undergoing the prescribed process—and held that the principles governing consequential benefits for contractual service also applied.