1. Special disability leave and salary for constable disabled on duty under Rule 99, RSR and RPwD Act, 2016. (Para 1 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Sharda Kanwar W/o Shri Narendra Singh Sisodia – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13790 of 2025
Decided On : 12-03-2026
Important Points
A government employee acquiring a disability while on duty is entitled to Special Disability Leave and continued salary under Rule 99 of the Service Rules and Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, regardless of whether an FIR was lodged.
Subject
Service Law - Disability Benefits
Act Referred
RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES: R.99
RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITY ACT: S.20(4)
RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITY ACT: S.20(4)
Headnote
(A) Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 - Rule 99 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 20(4) - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Disability acquired during duty - Entitlement to Special Disability Leave and salary - A government servant who acquires a disability while on duty is entitled to Special Disability Leave under Rule 99 of Service Rules - Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016 mandates that no government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during service; if unsuitable for the post, they should be shifted to another post or kept on a supernumerary post with same pay and benefits. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
(B) Maintainability of Writ Petition - Alternative remedy - Remedies under Sections 23, 80, and 83 of the Act of 2016 are not efficacious if the authority lacks the power to enforce directions - A writ petition is maintainable when the denial of salary to a severely disabled employee violates the fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
A government employee serving as a constable met with an accident while on duty, resulting in a coma and 85% disability. Despite confirmation of duty status by competent authorities and a disability certificate, salary was withheld. The department contended that the absence of an FIR disentitled the employee from being granted Special Disability Leave.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the conditions for Special Disability Leave under Rule 99 of the Service Rules were satisfied based on the report of the competent authority. The lack of an FIR does not outweigh documentary evidence of the employee being on duty. The employee is entitled to salary and service benefits under Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016.
Issues: The main issues were whether the employee is entitled to Special Disability Leave and withheld salary despite the absence of an FIR, and whether the writ petition is maintainable given the alternative remedies provided under the Act of 2016.
Ratio Decidendi: Disability acquired during the course of employment must be protected under Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016 and Rule 99 of Service Rules. Procedural lapses like the absence of an FIR cannot be used to deny statutory benefits when duty status is confirmed by competent officials. The right to salary for a disabled employee is a facet of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Result: Writ petition allowed. Respondents directed to grant Special Disability Leave and release due salary from August 2021 with interest and continue regular salary payments.
(B) Maintainability of Writ Petition - Alternative remedy - Remedies under Sections 23, 80, and 83 of the Act of 2016 are not efficacious if the authority lacks the power to enforce directions - A writ petition is maintainable when the denial of salary to a severely disabled employee violates the fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
A government employee serving as a constable met with an accident while on duty, resulting in a coma and 85% disability. Despite confirmation of duty status by competent authorities and a disability certificate, salary was withheld. The department contended that the absence of an FIR disentitled the employee from being granted Special Disability Leave.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the conditions for Special Disability Leave under Rule 99 of the Service Rules were satisfied based on the report of the competent authority. The lack of an FIR does not outweigh documentary evidence of the employee being on duty. The employee is entitled to salary and service benefits under Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016.
Issues: The main issues were whether the employee is entitled to Special Disability Leave and withheld salary despite the absence of an FIR, and whether the writ petition is maintainable given the alternative remedies provided under the Act of 2016.
Ratio Decidendi: Disability acquired during the course of employment must be protected under Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016 and Rule 99 of Service Rules. Procedural lapses like the absence of an FIR cannot be used to deny statutory benefits when duty status is confirmed by competent officials. The right to salary for a disabled employee is a facet of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Result: Writ petition allowed. Respondents directed to grant Special Disability Leave and release due salary from August 2021 with interest and continue regular salary payments.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Laxmi Kant Malpura, Madhavi Vyas, Jeetram Choudhary, Shivangi Singh Patel
For the Respondents: Megha Sharma, Bhuwnesh Sharma
For the Appellants : Laxmi Kant Malpura, Madhavi Vyas, Jeetram Choudhary, Shivangi Singh Patel
For the Respondents: Megha Sharma, Bhuwnesh Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims disability leave and salary; respondents oppose due to no FIR or proved on-duty accident. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Police letters confirm on-duty accident; no FIR need not disentitle benefits under Rule 99 and RPwD Act. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Disability during service despite absence of FIR entitles employee to benefits under Section 20(4), RPwD Act. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
5. Writ allowed; respondents to grant special disability leave and release salary with interest within 30 days. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. Is a government employee entitled to special disability leave if disabled on duty without an FIR?
Yes, the court held that absence of an FIR does not disentitle an employee from benefits under Rule 99 of RSR and RPwD Act, 2016. (Para 5 , 7 )
7. What protection does Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provide?
It prohibits government establishments from dispensing with or reducing a disabled employee's rank; they must be shifted to another post or kept on supernumerary post. (Para 2 , 6 )
8. Are alternative remedies under the RPwD Act, 2016 an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction?
No, the court held that remedies under Sections 23, 80, 82, 83 of the Act are neither efficacious nor absolute bars to constitutional writ jurisdiction. (Para 6 )
9. Can non-payment of salary to a disabled employee constitute a violation of fundamental rights?
Yes, non-payment of salary and benefits to a completely disabled employee amounts to violation of the right to life with dignity under Article 21. (Para 6 )
ORDER :
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the contention that her husband Narendra Singh Sisodia is holding the post of Constable. On 22.08.2021, while her husband was on duty, on account of tyre burst of his Motorcycle, he met with an accident and consequently on account of severe injuries, he went under coma. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner has still not come out of coma and the Medical Experts have assessed his disability @ 85%.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the letters issued by the Station House Officer of Police Station Ramnagariya, Jaipur East where, husband of the petitioner was posted as well as letter/report given by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur East, who have confirmed that at the time of accident, husband of the petitioner was on duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon Rule 99 of RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES , 1951 submits that under such special circumstances, where disability has occurred while the Government servant was on duty, he is entitled for Special Disability Leave and accordingly, prays to release the withheld salary admissible to husband of the petitioner from October, 2011 till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Section 20 Sub-Clause (4) of the RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITY ACT , 2016 which protects a Government employee from any adverse action on account of suffering disability during his service as well as to protect his rights and benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. CWP No. 9277/2021 decided on 09.07.2025.
3. Although, no reply to the writ petition has been filed yet, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and stated that on account of fact that no FIR was lodged with regard to alleged incident therefore, Special Disability Leave cannot be granted to husband of the petitioner until and unless, it is proved that he was on duty at the time of accident.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record letter dated 30.10.2023 issued by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur East which makes it clear that husband of the petitioner was treated on duty at the time of accident. The unique disability ID issued by the Competent Authority has also been placed on record to establish that husband of the petitioner has been suffering 85% disability thus, both the conditions which are required for sanctioning Special Disability Leave under Rule 99 of RSR are fulfilled in this case. Merely, the suspicions created by other officers on account of not lodging an FIR or there were discrepancies in Rojnamcha would not disentitle husband of the petitioner from the legitimate benefits admissible to him under the provisions of RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES as well as under the Act of 2016.
6. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Gupta (supra), after examining the similar circumstances has observed as under:
"A coordinate Bench of this Court has, in the case of Ummed Singh vs. State of Rajasthan , 2019 (4) RLW 3386, involving identical controversy, held as under:
“3. I have considered the submissions. Section 20 (4) of the Act of 2016 reads as under:-
“(4) No government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service: Provided that, if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.”
4. From the perusal of the aforesaid it is a
