Rajasthan High Court: In a civil writ petition filed by the petitioner rendered 80% disabled due to a brain hemorrhage against the denial of salary and benefits by the respondents, a single-judge bench of Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J., allowing the petition held that Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘RPwD Act’) extends protection to both partially and completely disabled employees, ensuring their continuity in service with all benefits until superannuation, including placement on a supernumerary post if adjustment is not possible. The respondents were directed to release due salary and other service benefits to the petitioner with interest @6% per annum and 9% in case of delay. The respondents were further directed to pay monthly salary to the petitioner along with other service benefits in terms of Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act and Rs. 25000 were imposed as costs.
Background
The petitioner, appointed as Junior Engineer in the Agriculture Department on 01-07-1995 and subsequently promoted to Assistant Engineer, suffered a brain hemorrhage on 16-11-2013, leading to right-side paralysis. This rendered him completely incapable to discharge his official duty or work of any nature with the respondents He has been bedridden since. A Medical Board certified him with 80% disability on 02-04-2025. No salary and other benefits were paid to the petitioner for the period from 12-04-2018 to 30-06-2018 and thereafter from 19-01-2019 till date. Aggrieved by this the petitioner filed present petition praying for the payment of salary and other service benefits until superannuation, and all retiral benefits thereafter.
Analysis and Decision
The Court, perusing Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act, noted that,
“no action prejudicial to a government servant shall be taken by any government establishment who acquires a disability during his/her service. It further provides that if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, he shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits and if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on supernumerary post until a suitable post is available for or until he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. It is also clear from the aforesaid provisions that the same are applicable irrespective of whether the employee is partially disabled or completely disabled.”
The Court noted that in Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab SEB, (2008) 1 SCC 579, the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 which was a pari materia provision with Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act, held the termination of a totally blind employee was illegal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the disabled too are equal citizens of the country and have as much share in its resources as any other citizen. The denial of their rights would not only be unjust and unfair to them and their families but would create larger and graver problems for the society at large. What the law permits to them is no charity or largesse but their right as equal citizens of the country. Further the Court noted that in Ummed Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 6199, the Court had affirmed the intent of Section 20(4) to prevent dispensing with services of employees acquiring disability and directed the creation of supernumerary posts to ensure continuity of salary and benefits.
The Court observed that the afore-stated precedents confirmed its views about the petitioner being entitled to salary and other benefits under Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act.
Regarding the contention of the respondents about alternative remedy being available to the petitioner, the Court noted that neither Section 23, nor Section 80 of the RPwD Act offered an efficacious or alternative remedy. The Grievance Redressal Officer under Section 23(2) only investigates and takes up matters for corrective action, lacking jurisdiction to deliver or enforce verdicts. Similarly, while Section 23(4) allows approaching the District Level Committee, the RPwD Act is silent on its power and jurisdiction, with the State Government merely allows it to make suggestions. Section 80, concerning the State Commissioner, also lacks explicit authority to issue directions for Section 20(4) compliance or enforcement mechanisms. Section 82, granting the State Commissioner power of the civil courts, pertains only to specific procedural matters like summoning witnesses and not adjudicating the grievance itself.
The Court noted that refusing to entertain a writ petition due to an alternative remedy is a self-imposed restriction, not an absolute bar. The petitioner has incurred disability during employment and has not been paid salary or any other service benefits except clearing the medical bills for the last more than five and a half years. Instead of ensuring compliance of the salutary provisions contained under Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act, the petitioner has been dragged into this litigation which is pending consideration for the last almost four years. The Court was not inclined to relegate the petitioner to any other illusory remedy.
The Court observed that the denial of salary and benefits to a completely disabled, bedridden petitioner, despite his entitlement under Section 20(4), was also violative of his fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, thus establishing the maintainability of the writ petition.
In light of the afore-stated reasons, the Court allowed the writ petition with costs quantified at Rs. 25,000. The respondents were directed to release all due salary and service benefits, including arrears with 6% interest (9% for delayed payment) within four weeks, and to regularly pay monthly salary and other service benefits in terms of Section 20(4). All retiral benefits were also directed to be released upon his retirement.
Recognizing the insensitivity and apathy by the respondents towards the plight of the petitioner which frustrated the object of the RPwD Act, the Court directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, to issue instructions/circulars to all Government Departments to identify disabled employees and immediately extend the benefits of Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act in its letter and spirit. The Additional Advocate General was instructed to submit a copy of such instructions for Court’s perusal.
[Sunil Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3589, decided on 09-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: C.P. Sharma assisted by Saddik Khan
For the respondent: B.S. Chhaba, AAG assisted by Aniket Beniwal, Sajit Jakhar, Kesar Singh Shekhawat, AGC assisted by Aditya Sharma
Buy Constitution of India HERE
