Rajasthan High Court Slams State For Denying Salary To Disabled Asst Engineer, Directs Extension Of Benefits To All PwD Govt Employees

Expressing displeasure at the State for its "insensitivity and apathy" in denying salary and service benefits to an 80% disabled employee, the Rajasthan High Court directed the State to issue necessary order to all departments to identify disabled employees and grant them benefit under Clause 20(4) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

Clause 20(4) of the Act laid down that no prejudicial action against the government servant shall be taken who acquired disability during his/her service. If an employee after acquiring disability was not suitable for the post, he shall be shifted to some other post with same pay scale and service benefits, and if the same is not possible, then be kept on supernumerary post until a suitable post was available or he attained the age of superannuation.

Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal was hearing a petition by an Assistant Engineer who was working in the Agriculture department, who while in service, suffered a brain hemorrage resulting into paralysis in right side of the body. As per report of medical board, he suffers from 80% disability during his service, was bedridden and was unable to do official work of any nature.

It was argued that despite the availability of Section 20(4) of the Act, State had not paid him "salary and other service benefits" for around five and half years.

"The aforesaid case is a classic case reflecting the insensitivity and apathy of the respondents towards the plight of a disabled person who has been denied benefit under the Act of 2016 by the respondents for last about five and a half year without any justification which frustrates the laud object of the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. In the aforesaid factual context, this Court deems it just and proper to issue a direction to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan to issue necessary instruction/circular to all the Government Departments to identify such disabled employees, if any, and to extend them benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016 in its letter and spirit, immediately". 

The Court perused Section 20(4) of the Act and held that the provision was applicable irrespective of complete or partial disability. There was nothing in the provision to reflect that only a partially disabled employee was entitled for the protection under the provision.

Furthermore, while rejecting the jurisdiction argument, the Court highlighted that under Section 23(2) if any complaint was filed by any aggrieved person with the Grievance Redressal Officer, he shall investigate it and take it up with the establishment for corrective action. However, it did not reflect that such officer had any jurisdiction to deliver any verdict in the matter or to enforce it.

Further, although Section 23(4) provided opportunity to the aggrieved person, if dissatisfied with the action taken on his complaint, to approach the District Level Committee, no authority is vested with the committee to pass any order/direction on the complaint, but it can only make suggestions to the district officer.

The Court further observed that,

“Reliance placed on Section 82 by the learned Additional Advocate General is misconceived and misplaced. It simply provides that for the purpose of discharging his function under the Act, the State Commissioner shall have the same powers as that of a Civil Court while trying a suit in respect of matters enumerated thereunder such as summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, discovery and production of a document, requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or office, receiving affidavits and issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or public documents.”

In this light, the Court held that no efficacious or alternative remedies were available under Sections 20, 80 or 82 of the Act.

It was further opined that such act on part of the State to not provide benefits to the disabled government employee who was eligible under the Act also amounted to violation of his fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21. Hence, for this reason also, the writ petition was maintainable. The court said,

“Instead of ensuring compliance of the salutary provisions contained under Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016, the petitioner has been dragged into this litigation which is pending consideration for the last almost four years. In view thereof, even otherwise also, this Court is not inclined to relegate the petitioner to any other illusory remedy.”

The writ petition was allowed, and respondents are directed to release due salary and other service benefits to the petitioner within 4 weeks. 

The matter is listed on August 11 for compliance. 

Title: Sunil Kumar Gupta v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 245

Click Here To Read/Download Order