Rajasthan High Court Protects Probationer from Termination on Acquiring Disability; Says Section 20 of RPwD Act protects government employee who acquires disability during service, irrespective of probationary status
Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha Borana
Case: Sanjay Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3504/2026
Date of Judgment: 22 July 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:28292
Background
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a government employee cannot be terminated merely because the employee acquires a disability during service, even where the employee is still on probation.
The petitioner, Sanjay Choudhary, was appointed as a Constable on 3 June 2013. During his probation, he met with an accident on 29 June 2014 and subsequently suffered 100% disability, certified by the competent Medical Board.
Despite the disability having been acquired during service, his services were terminated by order dated 19 June 2018 with effect from 29 June 2014 on the ground that he was no longer capable of performing the duties of a Constable.
The petitioner challenged the termination before the High Court, relying upon Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
The State contended that the petitioner was only a probationer-trainee and had not been confirmed in service and, therefore, could not claim the protection available to an employee under Section 20. The High Court rejected this contention.
Protection Under Section 20 Extends to Probationers
Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act prohibits a Government establishment from dispensing with or reducing in rank an employee who acquires a disability during service.
Where the employee becomes unsuitable for the post held, the establishment is required to shift the employee to another post carrying the same pay scale and service benefits. If this is not possible, the employee is to be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post becomes available or until superannuation, whichever is earlier.
Justice Rekha Borana held that the provision uses the expression “employee” and does not exclude a person merely because the appointment is still under probation.
The Court rejected the argument that an employee ceases to receive statutory protection simply because confirmation in service has not yet taken place.
The Court relied, among other precedents, upon decisions concerning the corresponding protection under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, including Union of India v. Pramod Sadashiv Thakre and Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Transport Corporation.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab concerning the legal protection available to probationers.
Recent Supreme Court Judgment in Bali Ram Reinforces the Principle
The High Court also relied upon the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. Bali Ram, 2026 INSC 689, decided on 13 July 2026.
In Bali Ram, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the statutory protection applicable to an employee acquiring disability during service requires the employer to consider alternative employment carrying the same pay and service benefits and, where necessary, a supernumerary post. (See our DRI Post in Bali Ram)
The Rajasthan High Court applied this principle to the petitioner's case and found that his termination on account of disability was contrary to Section 20 of the RPwD Act.
Termination Contrary to Section 20
The High Court held that the petitioner's termination was in “total contravention” of Section 20 of the RPwD Act.
The Court also rejected reliance upon Clause 10 of the Memorandum dated 9 May 2013, observing that the provision concerned government servants who died during probation and could not be applied to an employee who had acquired a disability during service.
The statutory obligation was to explore suitable alternative employment rather than terminate the petitioner on account of his disability.
Relief Granted
The High Court quashed the termination order dated 19 June 2018 and directed that the petitioner be deemed to be in service and reinstated.
The Court further directed:
- payment of 50% of salary arrears for the period from 29 June 2014 to 11 February 2026;
- grant of consequential service benefits, including increments and promotion, up to the date of superannuation;
- payment of all consequential retiral benefits upon superannuation;
- adjustment of amounts already paid towards gratuity, NPS or other heads against the salary arrears; and
- payment of the arrears within six weeks.
- In case of default beyond the stipulated period, the outstanding amount would carry 6% interest per annum.
Significance
The judgment is significant because it makes clear that probationary status cannot be used to defeat the statutory protection against termination on account of acquired disability.
Section 20 does not distinguish between a confirmed employee and a probationer. Once an employee acquires a disability during service, the Government establishment must examine reasonable accommodation and alternative employment before considering separation.
The judgment also reinforces the principle that the law requires retention rather than ouster. An employee who becomes unsuitable for the existing post because of disability is not to be treated as having lost the right to employment. The statutory scheme requires the employer to explore another suitable post carrying the same pay and service benefits and, where necessary, to retain the employee against a supernumerary post.
The decision is particularly relevant for government establishments, where probationary appointments should not become a means of circumventing the protection guaranteed by Section 20 of the RPwD Act.
It also fits within the Supreme Court's recent reaffirmation in Bali Ram (above) that disability acquired during service attracts a positive obligation on the employer to protect continuity of employment rather than simply terminate the employee.
The judgment thus reinforces an important principle of disability rights law: acquiring a disability during service does not terminate the employment relationship; it triggers the employer's obligation to accommodate and retain the employee.
Read the judgement below
Sanjay Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3504/2026 [PDF 275KB]