Constable Who Became Disabled on Probation Cannot Be Terminated; Section 20 RPwD Act Protects Him: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner was appointed a constable on 03.06.2013 and was on probation when he met with an accident on 29.06.2014 (para 7). A Medical Board certified his disability as 100% (para 7). By an order of 19.06.2018 his services were terminated with effect from 29.06.2014 because he could not discharge a constable's duties, and he was paid service gratuity under Clause 10 of a Memorandum of 09.05.2013 (paras 1-2). In 2026 he filed a writ petition through his wife, relying on Section 20 of the 2016 Act (paras 3, 16). The State argued that a probationer who had not been confirmed could not claim that protection (para 5).

Section 20(4) bars a government establishment from dispensing with an employee who acquires a disability in service; if he is unfit for his post he must be shifted to another post with the same pay, or kept on a supernumerary post until superannuation (para 7). The provision speaks of an "employee" without limiting it to any class, and a probationer appointed through regular selection is an employee (para 8). Relying on Pramod Sadashiv Thakre (Bombay), V.P. Ahuja and Pawan Kumar (Delhi), the Court held the State's view that a probationer falls outside Section 20 to be "in total contravention to law" (paras 8-11). Citing Bali Ram, it noted that the protection is unqualified, applies however the disability was acquired, and leans towards retention (para 12). Following Bhagwan Dass, it held that the employee must be deemed in service with all benefits (paras 13-14). Clause 10 of the 2013 Memorandum covers probationers who die in service and could not apply to the petitioner (para 15).