Case Note & Summary
The writ petition arose from the termination of a police constable who had been appointed on 03.06.2013 after a regular selection process and was on probation when he met with an accident on 29.06.2014, resulting in 100% disability as certified on 25.01.2018. The Superintendent of Police, Kota (Rural) terminated his services by order dated 19.06.2018 with effect from 29.06.2014, holding him entitled only to service gratuity under Clause 10 of Memorandum dated 09.05.2013. The petitioner, through his wife, challenged the termination before the Rajasthan High Court, seeking reinstatement and consequential benefits under Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The respondents contended that, being a probationer-trainee not confirmed in service, the petitioner could not claim protection under Section 20. The court framed the issue whether a probationer who acquires disability during service is an 'employee' entitled to the non-discrimination protections and reasonable accommodation under Section 20 of the 2016 Act. The petitioner relied on Section 20(4) and precedents, including Bhagwan Dass, Pawan Kumar, and Ummed Singh, arguing that termination solely on account of disability is impermissible and that he should be adjusted to another post or kept on a supernumerary post until superannuation. The respondents maintained that because the petitioner was not confirmed, the termination and grant of limited benefits were lawful. The court examined Section 20 of the 2016 Act, particularly Section 20(4) and its provisos, which prohibit Government establishments from dispensing with or reducing in rank an employee who acquires a disability during service; if the employee is not suitable for the post held, he must be shifted to another post with same pay scale and service benefits, and if adjustment is not possible, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains superannuation. The court held that the provision uses the term 'employee' without restricting it to confirmed employees, and a probationer is an employee entitled to protection against arbitrary termination. It relied on Union of India v. Pramod Sadashiv Thakre, which held that Section 47 of the 1995 Act protects an employee irrespective of nature of service, and V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab, which recognized that probationers are entitled to certain protections. The court also referred to Union of India v. Bali Ram, where the Supreme Court held that acquired disability must be dealt with by shifting the employee or creating a supernumerary post, and that protection is unqualified. The court found the termination order in total contravention of Section 20 of the 2016 Act and rejected reliance on Clause 10 of the Memorandum dated 09.05.2013, which applies only to government servants who expire during probation, not to surviving disabled employees. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed; the termination order dated 19.06.2018 was quashed and set aside. The petitioner was deemed to be in service and directed to be reinstated with immediate effect. The court also held the petitioner entitled to 50% of arrears of salary from 29.06.2014 to 11.02.2026, considering the fact that the present writ petition was filed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination on Account of Disability - Section 20 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 prohibits dispensing with or reducing in rank an employee who acquires disability during service - Employee appointed through regular selection process falls within 'employee' regardless of probation status - Termination order dated 19.06.2018 held contrary to Section 20 and quashed; petitioner entitled to reinstatement and service benefits (Paras 7-10, 14-16). B) Service Law - Status of Probationer - Probationer is an employee entitled to protection against arbitrary or punitive termination; Section 20 does not distinguish between nature of services - Termination solely on ground of acquired disability invalid - Held that respondent authorities' conclusion that probationer not governed by Section 20 is in contravention of law (Paras 8-10). C) Persons with Disabilities Law - Equivalent Protection under Section 47 of 1995 Act - Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is pari materia to Section 20 of 2016 Act; employer must shift disabled employee to another post with same pay scale and service benefits, or keep on supernumerary post until suitable post available or superannuation - Court relied on judgments to hold that protection is unconditional and not limited to confirmed employees (Paras 11-13). D) Service Law - Relief and Reinstatement - Employee acquiring 100% disability during service is deemed in service and entitled to all consequential benefits - Court quashed termination order, directed deemed service and reinstatement with immediate effect, and granted 50% of arrears of salary from 29.06.2014 to 11.02.2026 - Held that Clause 10 of Memorandum dated 09.05.2013 applies only to deceased government servants during probation, not surviving disabled employees (Paras 13-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a probationer who acquires disability during service is an 'employee' entitled to protection under Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and whether termination of such employee solely on ground of disability is valid.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed; order dated 19.06.2018 quashed and set aside; petitioner deemed to be in service and reinstated with immediate effect; petitioner held entitled to 50% of arrears of salary w.e.f. 29.06.2014 till 11.02.2026; further directions as recorded in judgment.
Law Points
- Government establishment cannot dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires disability during service
- employee includes probationer
- employer must shift disabled employee to another post with same pay scale and service benefits or keep on supernumerary post until suitable post available or superannuation
- protection under Section 20 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 is unconditional
- termination solely on ground of disability is illegal
