Probationer Also an 'Employee' Under RPwD Act, Can't be Terminated on Acquiring Disability During Service - says Rajasthan HC

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]

State Inaction Cannot Defeat Disability Pension Rights: Rajasthan High Court Grants 46 Years' Disability Pension Arrears for Ex-IAF Corporal

Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
Bench: Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati
Case Title: Ratti Ram v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24281/2025 (as reported)

Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:26378-DB

Decided on: 16 June 2026

Background

In a significant ruling reaffirming that bureaucratic delay cannot extinguish statutory rights, the Rajasthan High Court directed payment of disability pension arrears spanning nearly 46 years to an ex-Corporal of the Indian Air Force whose pension had been discontinued in 1980.

The petitioner, Ratti Ram, had developed Bronchial Asthma during service and was sanctioned disability pension. The pension, however, was discontinued in 1980 on the ground that his disability required reassessment by a Medical Board. Although the petitioner sought restoration of his pension, the reassessment process remained pending for decades due entirely to administrative inaction.

When a Re-assessment Medical Board was eventually convened, it categorically found that the petitioner's disability had remained unchanged and had continued uninterrupted since the pension was stopped.

The petitioner approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, which restored his entitlement to disability pension but restricted arrears to the year 2019, when the reassessment was finally conducted. Challenging this limitation, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court.

The principal question before the Court was whether a disabled ex-serviceman could be denied decades of pension merely because the authorities failed to conduct the reassessment within a reasonable time.

Issues Before the Court

The Court considered the following issues:

• Whether disability pension should be restored from the date it was discontinued or only from the date of reassessment.

• Whether the consequences of prolonged administrative delay could be imposed upon a disabled ex-serviceman.

• Whether disability pension is a vested legal right that cannot be curtailed because of official inaction.

• Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal was justified in restricting arrears to 2019 despite the Medical Board's finding that the disability had continued since 1980.

Findings of the Court

1. Disability Pension Is a Valuable Legal Right:  The Division Bench reiterated that disability pension is not a discretionary concession or ex gratia payment, but a valuable statutory right accruing to eligible members of the armed forces. Relying upon settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court observed that once entitlement stands established, the benefit must ordinarily relate back to the date on which the right accrued.
2. The State Cannot Benefit from Its Own Inaction:  The Court found that the extraordinary delay in conducting the reassessment medical examination was entirely attributable to the respondents. The petitioner had pursued restoration of his pension, yet the authorities failed to discharge their obligations for decades. The Bench emphatically held that a citizen cannot be penalised for the administrative lapses of the State. Allowing the Government to deny arrears because it failed to conduct the reassessment would amount to permitting the State to benefit from its own wrong.
3. Medical Evidence Established Continuity of Disability: A crucial factor influencing the decision was the finding of the Re-assessment Medical Board that the petitioner's disability had remained constant from the date on which the pension was discontinued. Once continuity of disability stood medically established, the Court held that there remained no legal basis for restricting arrears to the year of reassessment.
4. Continuing Pension Rights Cannot Be Defeated by Technicalities:  The Court also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India through its Secretary v. Sgt. Girish Kumar & Ors., reiterating that disability pension involves a continuing cause of action. The mere fact that proceedings concluded at a later stage could not deprive the petitioner of pension that had lawfully accrued over the intervening period.

Directions Issued

Allowing the writ petition, the Rajasthan High Court:

• set aside the Armed Forces Tribunal's direction restricting arrears to 2019;
• held that the petitioner was entitled to disability pension from the date of its discontinuation in 1980;
• directed the respondents to calculate and release the entire arrears payable; and
• ordered compliance within four months.

Why This Judgment Matters

1. Protection Against Administrative Delay:- The judgment reinforces an important constitutional principle that government inaction cannot extinguish vested statutory rights. Public authorities cannot rely upon their own delay to deny lawful benefits.
2. Strong Recognition of Disability Pension Rights:- The ruling reiterates that disability pension is an enforceable legal entitlement flowing from military service and sacrifice, not a matter of governmental generosity.
3. Strengthening the Doctrine of Continuing Cause of Action:- The Court recognised that pension claims are continuing in nature. Every month during which pension is unlawfully withheld gives rise to a fresh cause of action, preventing legitimate claims from being defeated by procedural delays. 
4. A Welfare-Oriented Interpretation:- The judgment adopts a humane and rights-based approach to disability pension laws, ensuring that former servicemen who have acquired disabilities are not left without support because of bureaucratic indifference.

DRI Commentary

This decision is an important contribution to disability rights jurisprudence, even though it arises in the context of military pension law. At its core lies a broader legal principle that resonates across disability law: the State cannot deprive a person with disability of a statutory entitlement because public authorities failed to perform their legal duties.

The High Court rightly recognised that the petitioner's disability did not begin when the Medical Board finally examined him decades later. The Board merely confirmed what had existed throughout. Restricting arrears to the date of reassessment would therefore have rewarded administrative lethargy while punishing the individual whose rights the law was intended to protect.

The ruling is equally significant for reaffirming that disability pension is an incident of service and a matter of dignity, not charity. By directing payment of nearly 46 years of arrears, the Court restored not only the petitioner's financial entitlement but also the principle that governmental delay cannot override justice.

The judgment is likely to serve as an important precedent for similarly placed ex-servicemen whose disability benefits have been withheld because mandatory medical reviews or administrative procedures were not undertaken in time.

Administrative Lapses Cannot Defeat Disability Pension: Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief to Ex-Sepoy After 31 Years

Court: Rajasthan High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Justice Sudesh Bansal and Hon'ble Justice Ravi Chirania
Case Title: Ex Sepoy Om Prakash v. Union of India & Another
Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5477/2024
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:20716-DB
Decided on: 8 June 2026

Background

In a significant judgment protecting the rights of disabled veterans, the Rajasthan High Court held that an ex-serviceman could not be denied disability pension because of procedural failures committed by the Army itself.

The petitioner had served in the Indian Army as a Sepoy for over ten years before being discharged in 1995. During service, he developed Radial Nerve Palsy (RNP), a neurological condition for which he underwent repeated treatment and hospitalisation at military hospitals. Despite his documented medical condition, the Army discharged him without convening the mandatory Release Medical Board (RMB) and omitted his medical history from the discharge certificate.

Alleging that these omissions were intended to deprive him of disability pension under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, the petitioner approached the High Court after remaining without disability benefits for over three decades.

The Union of India opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had several disciplinary punishments ("red ink entries"), was discharged on account of indiscipline, and that the writ petition was barred by delay.

Issues Before the Court

The High Court considered:

• Whether the petitioner's disability was attributable to or aggravated by military service.
• Whether failure to convene a Release Medical Board violated the mandatory Pension Regulations.
• Whether omission of the petitioner's medical history from the discharge certificate unjustly deprived him of disability pension.
• Whether disciplinary punishments could automatically disentitle an ex-serviceman from disability or invalid pension.
• Whether a pension claim could be rejected solely on the ground of delay.

Court's Observations

1. Failure to Conduct Release Medical Board Was a Serious Procedural Violation: The Court found it undisputed that the petitioner had undergone repeated treatment for his neurological condition while in service. Despite this, no Release Medical Board was constituted before his discharge. The Bench described this omission as a serious lapse and held that the respondents had failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for disregarding the mandatory procedure.

2. Medical History Was Deliberately Omitted: The Court noted that the medical history column in the discharge certificate had been left blank despite clear evidence of prolonged medical treatment immediately before discharge. The circumstances, according to the Bench, indicated that the omission could not be treated as a mere clerical error and had the effect of denying the petitioner his lawful pensionary benefits.

3. Disability Pension Provisions Must Receive a Liberal Interpretation: Recognising disability pension as a beneficial social welfare measure, the Court reiterated that pension regulations should be interpreted purposively so as to advance, rather than frustrate, the rights of disabled servicemen. Technical or procedural lapses attributable to the authorities cannot defeat legitimate pension claims.

4. Disciplinary Record Does Not Automatically Defeat Disability Pension: Rejecting the respondents' reliance on the petitioner's red ink entries, the Court observed that many disciplinary incidents occurred during the period when he was suffering from the neurological disorder. The Bench held that behavioural or performance issues cannot be viewed in isolation where they may have been influenced by a documented service-related medical condition. Red ink entries, by themselves, do not disentitle a serviceman from disability or invalid pension.

5. Pension Is a Continuing Cause of Action: The High Court rejected the objection of delay, reaffirming the settled principle that pension is a recurring entitlement. Each month's non-payment gives rise to a fresh cause of action, and therefore a genuine disability pension claim cannot be dismissed merely because considerable time has elapsed since discharge.

Directions Issued

The Rajasthan High Court:

• Held that the petitioner was entitled to disability/invalid pension under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.
• Declared that his discharge was intrinsically linked to the disability suffered during military service.
• Directed the Union of India to grant disability/invalid pension.
• Restricted arrears to three years preceding the filing of the writ petition while directing payment of regular pension prospectively.

Why this Judgment Matters

The judgment carries significance beyond the individual case.

First, it reinforces that public authorities cannot benefit from their own procedural failures. Where mandatory safeguards such as a Release Medical Board are ignored, the resulting prejudice cannot be used to defeat a serviceman's statutory rights.

Secondly, the Court adopts a welfare-oriented interpretation of disability pension provisions, recognising that such schemes exist to protect personnel who suffer disabilities while serving the nation.

Thirdly, the decision acknowledges that disciplinary issues may sometimes be connected to an underlying medical condition. This introduces a more humane and contextual approach to assessing entitlement to disability benefits.

Finally, the judgment strengthens the principle that pension claims constitute a continuing cause of action, ensuring that veterans are not denied justice merely because administrative lapses remained unchallenged for many years.

Disability Rights India View

This judgment is an important affirmation that disability rights cannot be defeated by administrative omissions. The failure to convene a Release Medical Board and the omission of the petitioner's medical history were not treated as mere procedural irregularities but as serious lapses with direct consequences for his entitlement to social security.

The ruling also reflects an important disability rights principle: decision-makers must consider the impact of a medical condition when assessing a person's conduct or service record. Mechanical reliance on disciplinary entries, without examining the underlying disability, risks perpetuating injustice.

Although arising in the context of military pension, the judgment has broader relevance for disability jurisprudence. It reinforces that beneficial legislation should be interpreted liberally, procedural safeguards must be faithfully implemented, and the State cannot evade its legal obligations through its own administrative failures. The decision therefore strengthens the constitutional commitment to dignity, social security and substantive justice for persons who acquire disabilities while serving the nation.

Read the Judgement of Rajasthan HC