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 appare