Supernumerary Posts U/S 20(4) RPwD Act Available Only To Those Who Acquire Disability During Service: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the benefit of adjustment against a supernumerary post under Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is available only to employees who acquire a disability during the course of their service.
It ruled that the provision does not extend to persons appointed under the quota reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities, observing that the petitioner's reliance on Section 20(4) for creation of a supernumerary post was based on a misreading of the statutory provision.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that:"A plain reading of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016 demonstrates that this sub-section comes into picture only when an employee acquires a disability during service. This sub-section is not at all attracted in the facts of the present case, because the petitioner was appointed in service on account of him being a person with disability."
Background:
The petitioner, a 100% visually impaired District Inspector/District Audit Officer, sought directions to the State to transfer and adjust him at Rampur by creating a supernumerary post under Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
He contended that both he and his wife were visually impaired, they had a two-year-old child, and Shimla's difficult terrain made it extremely challenging for them to reside there. The petitioner relied upon an internal departmental communication recommending creation of a supernumerary post if he was to be retained at Rampur.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had been appointed under the quota reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities and had subsequently been promoted to the post of District Inspector/District Audit Officer. It argued that no sanctioned post of District Inspector/District Audit Officer existed at Rampur and, therefore, the petitioner could not insist upon posting at that station. The State, however, expressed its willingness to consider posting him at any station where such a sanctioned post was available.
The Court closely examined Section 20 of the RPwD Act, particularly sub-section (4), which protects employees who acquire a disability during service from being reduced in rank or removed from service. The Court observed that the provision, along with its provisos relating to shifting such employees to another post or retaining them against a supernumerary post, becomes applicable only when disability is acquired after joining service.
The Court held that since the petitioner had entered government service as a person with benchmark disability, Section 20(4) had no application to his case. It observed that both the petitioner and the departmental authorities had misread the statutory provision while seeking creation of a supernumerary post.
On the issue of transfer, the Court noted that the petitioner sought posting as District Inspector/District Audit Officer at Rampur despite the admitted position that no such sanctioned post existed there. Since the office at Rampur was headed by an Inspector, a superior post could not be accommodated at that station merely by judicial direction.
The Court reiterated that no mandamus can be issued directing the Government to create a post where none exists or to post an employee against a non-existent sanctioned post.
Holding the petition to be misconceived, the High Court dismissed the writ petition
Case Name: Shishu Pal Mehta v/s State of H.P. & another
Case No.: CWP No.4521 of 2026
Date of Decision: 14.07.2026