[2025:RJ-JP:42914] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15322/2025 Kapil S/o Pratap Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Earlier Posted As Constable In District Jhalawar, Since 100 Percent Disable Therefore Through His Mother Sharda Wife Of Pratap Ram Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Village Ramasiya, Tausar, District Nagaur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. 3. Superintendent Of Police, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahmad Mr. Prithvi Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG with Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/10/2025 1. Considered submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and learned AAG and on request of learned counsel for petitioner and agreed by learned AAG, the writ petition is considered for final disposal at this stage. 2. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer: “1. The impugned action/omission of the respondents whereby the petitioner is not granted the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Rights [2025:RJ-JP:42914] (2 of 4) [CW-15322/2025] of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 by releasing salary and due arrears in his favour continuously from the date when he became completely incapable to discharge his duty till date and continuously till superannuation may be rendered arbitrary and illegal and accordingly same may be ordered to be set right by issuing appropriate directions for the same in the interest of justice. 2. The respondents may kindly be restrained from passing any order of removing from service or to dispose with the service or reduction in rank on the ground of his disability against the petitioner. 3. The respondents may also be directed to make payment in interest at @ 9% p.a. for delay payment.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner while placing reliance upon judgment dated 09.07.2025 in case of Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SB CWP No.9277/2021) by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court submits that present petitioner is entitled for salary under Section 20(4) of Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016. He further submits that Section 47 of Act of 1995 also provides for non- discrimination in Government employment and considering the provision, a Co-ordinate Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed writ petition No.21761/2022 (order dated 06.03.2024 titled as Amit, through his father Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.). He also submits that in case of Megha Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan (SB CWP No.13746/2025 order dated 03.10.2025) a Co- ordinate Bench has also allowed the writ petition and issued [2025:RJ-JP:42914] (3 of 4) [CW-15322/2025] directions and accordingly, this writ petition may be disposed of. 4. Learned AAG appearing on behalf of respondents submits that respondent will examine the case of petitioner and if he is eligible then they will act accordingly therefore the writ petition be disposed of in accordance with settled proposition of law. 5. Having considered the submissions and also considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhagwandas and Anr. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board AIR 2008 SC 990, Umed Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2019 (4) RLW 3386 and Sunil Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9277/2021) and further passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in case of Megha Kanwar (supra), the writ petition is disposed of with following directions to respondents: (I) The respondent shall examine the case of employee Kapil regarding payment of due salary and continued payment in terms of law as discussed hereinabove along with provision under Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016, (ii) The consideration shall be made within a period of 4 weeks and on consideration, if respondent find the case to be covered under the law as referred hereinabove then they would make the payment of due salary and further emoluments without any delay, preferably within a period of two weeks after such decision. [2025:RJ-JP:42914] (4 of 4) [CW-15322/2025] (iii) The respondents are under an obligation to ensure that benefit is provided under the law is regularly provided to the petitioner, if he is entitled. 6. In case, petitioner is not entitled to avail the benefits under the law as mentioned hereinabove then a reasoned order be passed by the respondents and communicated to the petitioner. 7. If the petitioner is aggrieved from any order, then he may approach this Court with fresh petition. 8. Accordingly, writ petition along with pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /280