Back
2026 Supreme(Raj) 919
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
REKHA BORANA, J.
Sanjay Choudhary Son Of Shri Hari Singh Choudhary - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Finance, Secretariat, Jaipur - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3504 Of 2026
Decided On : 22-07-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Disability Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Service jurisprudence - Probationer - Status - A probationer is entitled to protection against arbitrary termination and cannot be terminated punitively without complying with principles of natural justice - Probationer is not excluded from the definition of 'employee' under Section 20 of the Act of 2016. (Para 9)
(C) Memorandum dated 09.05.2013 - Clause 10 - Applicability - Clause 10 pertains to government servants who expired during probation - Not applicable to a surviving employee - Cannot be relied upon to terminate services of a disabled employee. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Constable appointed on 03.06.2013, met with an accident on 29.06.2014 during his probation period, resulting in 100% disability as per Disability Certificate dated 25.01.2018. His services were terminated vide order dated 19.06.2018 on the ground of incapacity due to disability, with payment of service gratuity under Clause 10 of Memorandum dated 09.05.2013. The writ petition challenged this termination.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the termination was in contravention of Section 20 of the Act of 2016. The petitioner is entitled to all benefits under Section 20, including deemed service, reinstatement, 50% arrears of salary for the delayed period, consequential benefits, and retiral benefits, subject to adjustment of amounts already paid.
Issues: The main issues were whether a probationer is entitled to protection under Section 20 of the Act of 2016, and whether termination solely on account of disability is permissible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that Section 20(4) protects all employees regardless of probationary status, and the employer must either shift the employee to a suitable post or keep him on a supernumerary post until superannuation. Termination on the ground of disability alone is illegal and violative of the Act.
Result: Writ petition allowed. Impugned order quashed and set aside. Petitioner deemed in service with reinstatement and consequential benefits as directed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with Mr. S.Mohd. Umer Alam, Mr. Prithvi Singh Deora, Mr. Mohsin Khan & Mr. Iliyas Khan
For the Respondents: Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy. GC with Mr. Munendra Singh Fauzdar
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties argue applicability of section 20 to probationer. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. section 20 protects all employees including probationers. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. precedents confirm protection against disability-based termination. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. termination is illegal; reinstatement and benefits ordered. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
Order :
REKHA BORANA, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 19.06.2018 (Annexure-7) whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated for the reason of he having acquired disability during service and being incapable to discharge the duties of a 'Constable'.
2. Vide order dated 19.06.2018, while terminating the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 29.06.2014, he had been held entitled to the service gratuity in terms of Clause 10 of Memorandum dated 09.05.2013.
3. Counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon Section 20 of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2016'), submitted that the petitioner could not have been terminated from services only on account of disability. In terms of 2nd Proviso to Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016, the petitioner was entitled to be either adjusted against any other post or to be kept on a supernumerary post till the date he attains the age of superannuation. As the petitioner had been declared totally incapacitated from performing his duties, he was entitled to be deemed in service and is entitled to all the consequential service benefits.
4. In support of his submission Counsel relied upon Hon'ble the Apex Court judgment in Bhagwan Dass & Ors. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board; (2008) 1 SCC 579, the Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation ; W.P. (C) No. 4261/2023 (decided on 16.01.2015) and a Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Ummed Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan ; 2019 (4) RLW 3386
5. Per contra Counsel for the respondents submitted that as the petitioner was a probationer-trainee and had not been confirmed in service, he was not entitled to claim the benefit in terms of Section 20 of the Act of 2016. Unless the petitioner was confirmed in service, he could not have claimed the service benefits as payable to a regular employee. Hence, the order impugned whereby it was ordered that 10% of the remuneration will be adjusted with NPS and remaining amount shall be paid in terms of Clause 10 of Memorandum dated 09.05.2013, is in consonance with law.
6. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.
7. The fact that the petitioner was appointed on 03.06.2013 and was on probation till the date he met with an accident on 29.06.2014, is not disputed. Further, the disability of the petitioner being 100%, as reflected in Disability Certificate dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure-3) issued by the competent Medical Board, is also not disputed. Section 20 of the Act of 2016 provides as under:-
"20. Non-discrimination in employment:- (1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, exempt any establishment from theprovisions of this section.
(2) Every Government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disability.
(3) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability.
(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
