Back
Protects Disabled Probationers Under Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016
In a landmark ruling that reinforces the job security of government employees, the has declared that a cannot be terminated solely on the ground of acquiring a disability. Ms. Justice Rekha Borana, presiding over the case, emphasized that the provisions of the , apply to all employees regardless of their confirmation status.
Case Background
The petitioner, Sanjay Choudhary, was appointed as a constable on , and was serving his when he suffered an accident on , resulting in 100% disability. In , the state authorities terminated his services, citing his inability to perform the duties of a constable and his status as a probationer. Challenging this , the petitioner approached the High Court, asserting his right to continue in service under .
Conflicting Perspectives
The State argued that because the petitioner had not yet been confirmed, he did not qualify as a regular employee and was therefore ineligible for the protection afforded by the Act. Conversely, the petitioner’s counsel maintained that the Act makes no distinction between temporary or probationary staff and regular employees, and that the state was obligated to accommodate him in a suitable post or create a .
Legal Analysis
The Court dismissed the state's contention that a probationer falls outside the ambit of the RPwD Act. Referencing several precedents, including the judgment of the in , the High Court held that probationers are entitled to specific protections and cannot be terminated in an .
Justice Borana clarified that Section 20 of the Act is "unqualified and unconditional," aiming to prevent unemployment due to acquired disabilities. The court further noted that the state's reliance on a memorandum regarding was misapplied, as that policy was intended for cases of expiration of service, not for employees currently living with disabilities.
Key Observations
-
"No Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service."
-
"It is not the proposition of law that a 'probationer' is not an 'employee' until confirmed."
-
"The conclusion of the respondent-Authorities to the effect that the petitioner being a probationer could not be entitled to be governed by Section 20, is in the opinion of this Court, in total contravention to law."
-
" distinguishes between initial disqualification and subsequent disability, and the law ought to lean towards retention over ouster from service."
Court’s Decision
The High Court quashed the order, directing that the petitioner be reinstated with immediate effect. The court ordered the government to pay 50% of the salary arrears dating back to his in , while acknowledging the delay in filing the petition. Additionally, the petitioner is entitled to all consequential service benefits, including increments and promotions, until his date of . This ruling sets a firm precedent that disability rights in the workplace remain protected by law, even during probationary periods.
