Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Sharda Kanwar W/O Shri Narendra Singh … vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jp:10392) on 12 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:10392]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13790/2025
Sharda Kanwar W/o Shri Narendra Singh Sisodia, Aged About 45
Years, R/o 161/139, Sector-16, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.
3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate Police Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. Station House Officer, Ramnagaria, Jaipur East.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura
Ms. Madhavi Vyas
Mr. Jeetram Choudhary
Ms. Shivangi Singh Patel
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Megha Sharma for
Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order
12/03/2026
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%.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 12:03:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:52:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10392] (2 of 7) [CW-13790/2025]
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.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 12:03:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:52:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10392] (3 of 7) [CW-13790/2025]
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 apparent that the
Parliament while enacting the said Act and the aforesaid
section essentially intended that no government establishment
would dispense with services of an employee who acquires
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 12:03:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:52:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10392] (4 of 7) [CW-13790/2025]
disability during his service and have also provided what has
to be done if the employee is found to be not suitable to
perform his duties it proceeds to even come to the extent of
directing to keep such a disabled employee on a
supernumerary post.
5. A supernumerary post may be created for a suitable person
in any of the existing grade. It is essentially created for
accommodating a permanent officer thus it is a post meant for
that disabled employee alone. Hence, even if the employee is
not able to perform any work he will be deemed to be treated
as worker against the said supernumerary post and his salary
will be drawn from that post has to be equivalent to that
which he was holding prior to his acquiring disability the post
would thus get extinguished on the day when the said
disabled person attains superannuation.
6. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall be
deemed to be continuous in service against a supernumerary
post equivalent to that of a driver and his salary shall be
drawn against the said post and paid to him each month till he
attains superannuation whereafter he will be paid pension in
terms of the Rules of 1996. It has already come on record that
the petitioner was drawing salary from 2015 upto February
2017 after he had acquired the disability and thus this Court
does not find any reasons coming forward for not allowing the
petitioner to draw salary till he attains superannuation. No
reasons have come forward for stopping the salary of the
petitioner from March 2017.
7. In view of the above, the contentions of the learned
Additional Advocate General to keep the petitioner as
voluntarily retired is not made out and the same is rejected. It
is further directed taking into consideration all the aspects that
the petitioner would be entitled to all medical facilities and
reimbursement of treatment expenses as are available to an
employee in service. Taking into consideration the acute
condition of the petitioner, it is directed that the department
shall deposit his monthly salary and also make his
reimbursements of treatment expenditure each month without
fail and deposited the same in his bank account which shall be
obtained from his relatives after due verification. Similar view
has been taken by this Court is akin to what has been allowed
by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bhagwan Das & Anr.
Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, AIR 2008 Supreme
Court 990, Kunal Singh Versus Union of India & Anr., AIR
2003 Supreme Court 1623 and Tulcha Ram Versus The State
of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. C.W.P. No.4862/1998), decided on
25.03.2017.
8. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed.”
Therefore, view of this Court that the petitioner is
entitled for the salary and other service benefits under Section
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 12:03:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:52:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10392] (5 of 7) [CW-13790/2025]
20(4) of the Act of 2016 stands fortified from the aforesaid
precedents.
The second limb of submission of learned counsel for the
respondents as to non maintainability of the writ petition on
the ground of availability of efficacious and alternative remedy
to the petitioner, is misconceived and deserves to be rejected.
Neither the provisions of Section 23, nor the provisions
of Section 80 offer the petitioner an alternative and efficacious
remedy so as to non-suit him. Section 23(2) provides that if
any complaint is filed by any aggrieved person with the
Grievance Redressal Officer, he shall investigate it and shall
take up the matter with the establishment for corrective
action. It does not reflect that such Grievance Redressal
Officer has been bestowed with any jurisdiction or power to
deliver any verdict in the matter and to get it enforced. He can
only take up the matter with the establishment for the
corrective action. Although sub-section (4) of Section 23 gives
an opportunity to the aggrieved person, if dissatisfied with the
action taken on his/her complaint made under Section 23(2),
to approach the District Level Committee on disability; but,
while, the Act of 2016 is silent on the power and jurisdiction of
the District Level Committee on disability, the order dated
09.01.2020 issued by the State Government and relied upon
by the learned counsel for the respondents, also does not
postulate any authority vested with the Committee to pass
any order or direction on the complaint of the aggrieved
person obliging the establishment to comply with the same.
Under this order, it can only make suggestions to the District
Officer on the appeal. Similarly, Section 80 of the Act of 2016
also does not reflect any authority of the State Commissioner
to issue any direction to the establishment to ensure
compliance of Section 20(4) or any mechanism to get it
enforced. Reliance placed on Section 82 by the learned
Additional Advocate General is misconceived and misplaced. It
simply provides that for the purpose of discharging his
function under the Act, the State Commissioner shall have the
same powers as that of a Civil Court while trying a suit in
respect of matters enumerated thereunder such as
summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses,
discovery and production of a document, requisitioning any
public record or copy thereof from any Court or office,
receiving affidavits and issuing commissions for the
examination of witnesses or public documents.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the remedy available
under Section 83 or under Section 80 is found neither
efficacious, nor alternative for the redressal of the grievance
of the petitioner.
Moreover, not to entertain a writ petition in view of
availability of an alternative remedy is a self imposed
restriction by the writ Courts and it is not an absolute bar to
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 12:03:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:52:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10392] (6 of 7) [CW-13790/2025]
the exercise of this discretionary and equitable remedy. In the
instant case, as already observed, the petitioner has incurred
disability during the course of employment and has not been
paid salary or any other service benefits except clearing the
medical bills for the last more than five and a half years.
Instead of ensuring compliance of the salutary provisions
contained under Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016, the
petitioner has been dragged into this litigation which is
pending consideration for the last almost four years. In view
thereof, even otherwise also, this Court is not inclined to
relegate the petitioner to any other illusory remedy.
The aspect of maintainability of the writ petition can be
examined from another angle as well. The action/omission on
the part of the respondents in not making payment of salary
and other service benefits for the last about five and half
years to the petitioner, who is completely disabled and
confined to bed, 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 which is one of the facets of right to life and liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. For
this reason also, this Court finds the writ petition to be
maintainable.
Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed with cost. The
respondents are directed to release due salary and other
service benefits to the petitioner. The arrears of salary and
other benefits shall be released within a period of four weeks
from today with interest @ 6% per annum failing which the
interest shall be leviable at the rate of 9% per annum after
expiry of the period of four weeks and the Officer(s)
responsible for delay would bear the enhanced interest
component. The respondents are further directed to pay to the
petitioner salary on month to month basis regularly and other
service benefits in terms of Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016
and in case of his retirement, he shall be released all retiral
benefits. The cost is quantified as Rs.25,000 which shall be
paid by the respondents to the petitioner within a period of
four weeks from today.
The aforesaid case is a classic case reflecting the
insensitivity and apathy of the respondents towards the plight
of a disabled person who has been denied benefit under the
Act of 2016 by the respondents for last about five and a half
year without any justification which frustrates the laud object
of the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016.
In the aforesaid factual context, 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, if any, and to extend them
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 12:03:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:52:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10392] (7 of 7) [CW-13790/2025]
benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016 in its letter and
spirit, immediately. ”
7. In the light of aforesaid discussion and observations
made by Coordinate Bench of this Court, the writ petition filed by
the petitioner deserves to be allowed.
8. Consequently, the respondents are directed to issue
necessary orders for granting Special Disability Leave to husband
of the petitioner as well as to release the due salary from August,
2021 till this date and to continue payment of regular salary as
per entitlement of husband of the petitioner. Necessary exercise
shall be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
NEERU /24
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 12:03:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:52:02 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
