Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
Subject : Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights
In a compassionate and legally stringent ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has reminded the state government that its obligation to employees extends well beyond the point of productivity. Justice Ravi Chirania, presiding over the Bench at Jaipur, issued a sharp rebuke to the State of Rajasthan for failing to provide salary and medical reimbursements to a Commercial Taxes Officer who has been in a coma for over two years following a brain hemorrhage.
The petitioner, Megha Kanwar, moved the High Court after the state department ceased paying her husband’s salary and refused to reimburse critical medical bills. Her husband, a dedicated Commercial Taxes Officer, suffered a debilitating brain hemorrhage in 2023. Despite holding a 76% permanent disability certificate, the family faced a wall of bureaucratic silence. The state, rather than supporting its employee in his hour of greatest need, treated the matter as a "routine" administrative decision, leaving the family to bear the staggering financial burden of long-term hospital care alone.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the state’s behavior was a direct violation of Section 20 (4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016, and Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a dignified life. Citing Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board and the recent Sunil Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan , the petitioner emphasized that an employer cannot abandon an employee who acquires a disability while in service.
Conversely, the state’s legal representative initially struggled to justify the omission, with the Finance Secretary, Revenue, conceding during the hearing that he was unfamiliar with the case details, citing that the employee had exhausted his official leave as the possible reason for the payment stoppage.
The Court’s analysis centered on the "mandatory" nature of Section 20 (4) of the RPWD Act, 2016. Justice Chirania clarified that the law dictates that no government establishment shall dispense with or reduce the rank of an employee who acquires a disability. The Court emphasized that when an employee can no longer perform their original duties, the state is obligated to provide alternative adjustments, including the creation of a supernumerary post.
The Court further distinguished this case from routine service matters, noting that the financial and emotional state of a family with a member in a coma leaves no room for the delays typically associated with standard litigation.
The Court’s frustration with the respondent's approach was palpable throughout the judgment:
> "This Court is in pain noticing the inhumane and arbitrary approach and act of the respondents... A sudden medical problem has declared the employee as a deadwood for the respondent-State Department and they are least bothered about his condition."
> "What the law permits to them is no charity or largess but their right as equal citizens of the country." (Quoting Bhagwan Dass )
> "Not making the payment of the due salary and not reimbursing the medical expenses is inhumane, arbitrary, unjustified and unreasonable on the part of the respondent-State Department."
The High Court has disposed of the petition with clear, time-bound directives: 1. Immediate Review : The state must review the case within 7 days. 2. Salary & Reimbursement : Absent a genuine legal impediment, the state is ordered to pay all outstanding salaries effective August 2024 and clear all pending medical bills. 3. Future Continuity : The court mandated that all future medical bills must be processed without administrative obstacles, ensuring the officer's dignity is maintained.
This ruling stands as a stark warning to state agencies: the "deadwood" rhetoric has no place in a constitutional democracy when applied to employees facing terminal or life-altering medical emergencies.
Incapacitated - Salary - Disability - Reimbursement - Mandate - Protection
#RPWDAct #ServiceLaw
Calcutta HC Questions Speaker’s Power to Appoint LoP
16 Jun 2026
Ponraj Challenges FIR Over Alleged Defamatory Political Remarks
16 Jun 2026
Outsourced Employees Lack Right to Promotion; Unauthorized Designation Upgrades Are Legally Void: Uttarakhand High Court
16 Jun 2026
Assigning Administrative Charges to Tainted Officials Violates Natural Justice: MP High Court Quashes PWD Order
16 Jun 2026
SC Rules Walking on Footpaths is Fundamental Right
19 Jun 2026
Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be Invoked for Title Disputes Unless Section 23 Applies: Allahabad High Court
04 Jul 2026
Vague And Nebulous Allegations Do Not Warrant Judicial Interference In Policy Matters: Patna High Court
04 Jul 2026
12-Year Possession Mandatory To Resist Land Eviction: Jharkhand HC
04 Jul 2026
Advocates Have No Right to Demand Out-Of-Turn Listing of Cases: Madras High Court
07 Jul 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.