Held in Coma: Rajasthan High Court Mandates Salary Protection for Injured Constable

In a landmark ruling that addresses the intersection of disability rights and administrative accountability, the Rajasthan High Court has decisively protected the livelihood of a government servant incapacitated while on duty. Justice Anand Sharma ordered the State of Rajasthan to release years of withheld salary to a constable who has remained in a coma since a severe motorcycle accident in 2021.

A Struggle for Dignity

The petitioner, Sharda Kanwar, brought the plight of her husband, Constable Narendra Singh Sisodia, to the court’s attention. Following a workplace accident in August 2021 that left him with 85% disability, the constable lapsed into a coma—a state from which he has yet to recover. Despite official confirmation from the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Jaipur East) that the officer was indeed on duty at the time of the incident, the state withheld his salary, citing the absence of a formal FIR as a barrier to granting "Special Disability Leave."

The Legal Tug-of-War

The case pitted the rigid bureaucratic requirements of the RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES (RSR) against the protective umbrella of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016 .

While the State argued that the lack of internal documentation and police records created enough suspicion to deny benefits, the Court was unmoved. Justice Anand Sharma rejected this posture, emphasizing that bureaucratic discrepancies regarding an FIR cannot strip a disabled government servant of their statutory rights or their fundamental right to live with dignity—a core facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Precedents and Protections

The Court relied heavily on the precedent set in Sunil Kumar Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and Ummed Singh vs. State of Rajasthan . These rulings clarify that Section 20(4) of the RPWD Act, 2016, is not merely a suggestion but a mandate. It acts as an absolute safeguard: government establishments are prohibited from dispensing with, or reducing the rank of, an employee who acquires a disability during their service. The Court underscored that even if an employee is unable to perform duties, they must be accommodated—even on a supernumerary post—to ensure their financial survival.

Key Observations

The judgment serves as a stinging critique of administrative apathy:

• "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."
• "The action/omission on the part of the respondents... despite his eligibility and entitlement for the same under Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016 definitely amounts to violation of his fundamental right to live with dignity."
• "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... and to extend them benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016."

The Verdict and Its Impact

The High Court has allowed the petition with costs, ordering the State to pay the arrears of salary within 30 days. If the state fails to meet this deadline, it will be liable to pay additional interest.

Beyond the immediate relief for the constable’s family, the court’s order has broader implications. By directing the Chief Secretary of Rajasthan to instruct all government departments to identify and support disabled employees, the High Court has signaled an end to the culture of institutional neglect toward those who have sacrificed their health in the line of duty. This judgment reinforces that the state’s duty of care extends far beyond the point of injury, ensuring that those who can no longer serve are not left behind.