Probationer Is Also 'Employee' Under RPwD Act, Can't Be Terminated For Acquiring Disability During Service: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a probationary government employee who acquires a disability during service is entitled to protection under Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and cannot be terminated merely because he was on probation.The bench of Justice Rekha Borana granted relief to a constable whose services were terminated after he acquired...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a probationary government employee who acquires a disability during service is entitled to protection under Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and cannot be terminated merely because he was on probation.
The bench of Justice Rekha Borana granted relief to a constable whose services were terminated after he acquired 100% disability following an accident during his probation period. The Court held that an employee appointed through a regular process of recruitment does not cease to be an "employee" merely because he has not been confirmed in service.
The petitioner was appointed as a constable on June 3, 2013 and was on probation when he met with an accident on June 29, 2014. He was subsequently certified to have suffered 100% disability and his services were terminated on the ground that he had become incapable of discharging the duties of a constable.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that under the second proviso to Section 20(4) of the 2016 Act, an employee who acquires a disability during service cannot be removed from service and must either be adjusted against any other post, or be kept deemed in service till the age of superannuation.
State on the contrary argued that since the petitioner was a probationer-trainee at the relevant time of the incident and was not confirmed in service, he was not entitled to claim the benefit in accordance with Section 20 of the Act.
After hearing the contentions, the Court perused Section 20 and opined that since the petitioner was appointed after a regular process of selection, he fell under the category of “employee” and Section 20(4) of the Act did not restrict “employee” to any particular class. Hence it could not be said that a probationer was not an employee until confirmed.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of V.P. Ahuja v State of Punjab & Ors. which held that a probationer was also entitled to certain protection and his services could not be terminated arbitrarily without complying with the principles of natural justice.
“…it is incomprehensible as to why the petitioner, who had been appointed after a regular recruitment process, would not be termed to be governed by Section 20 of the Act of 2016. The conclusion of the respondent-Authorities to the effect that the petitioner being a probationer could not be entitled to be governed by Section 20, is in the opinion of this Court, in total contravention to law.”
In this background, the Court held that the termination order was violative of Section 20 of the Act and hence was set aside.
It was held that the petitioner was entitled to all the benefits under Section 20 of the Act. The State was directed to consider the petitioner to be deemed in service and be reinstated with immediate effect.
Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
Title: Sanjay Choudhary v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 315