Introduction:

In Sharda Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Others, the Rajasthan High Court addressed a deeply humanitarian and legally significant issue concerning the rights of a government employee who was rendered incapacitated while discharging his official duties. The case involved a police constable who had been in a coma since 2021 following an accident that occurred during the course of his duty. Despite the undisputed medical condition and the circumstances of the accident, the State had withheld his salary for several years, placing immense financial and emotional strain on his family.

The petitioner, the wife of the constable, approached the High Court seeking relief against what she described as arbitrary and unjust action by the State authorities. She contended that her husband was entitled to Special Disability Leave under Rule 99 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and that the withholding of salary was in violation of both statutory provisions and basic principles of fairness.

The matter came before a Single Judge Bench presided over by Justice Anand Sharma, who was tasked with determining whether the State was justified in denying the benefits of Special Disability Leave and withholding the salary of an employee who had suffered a debilitating injury while on duty.

The case not only raised important questions about the interpretation of service rules but also highlighted the broader responsibility of the State towards its employees, particularly those who suffer injuries in the line of duty. At its core, the case was a test of the balance between procedural requirements and substantive justice.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner’s case was rooted in both legal entitlement and humanitarian considerations. Representing her incapacitated husband, she argued that the accident had occurred while he was on official duty, and therefore, he was clearly entitled to the benefits provided under Rule 99 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

It was submitted that Rule 99 specifically provides for the grant of Special Disability Leave to a government servant who suffers a disability as a result of an injury sustained in the course of duty. The petitioner contended that all the conditions required under this rule had been fulfilled in the present case.

To substantiate her claim, the petitioner relied on documentary evidence, including a letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, which explicitly stated that the constable was on duty at the time of the accident. This, according to the petitioner, conclusively established the nexus between the injury and the discharge of official duties.

Further, the petitioner pointed to the issuance of a Unique Disability ID (UDID) by the competent authorities, which recorded the constable’s disability at 85%. This, she argued, was clear proof of the severity and authenticity of the medical condition, leaving no room for doubt regarding the extent of the injury.

The petitioner also highlighted the severe hardship faced by the family due to the withholding of salary since 2021. She argued that the State’s action was not only legally untenable but also morally indefensible, as it deprived the family of their primary source of income at a time when they were already dealing with a medical crisis.

It was further contended that the absence of an FIR could not be used as a ground to deny the benefits of Special Disability Leave, especially when other credible evidence established that the accident had occurred during the course of duty. The petitioner urged the Court to adopt a purposive interpretation of the rules and to ensure that technicalities did not defeat substantive justice.

Arguments of the Respondent (State):

The State opposed the petition and sought to justify its decision to withhold the salary and deny Special Disability Leave. The primary contention of the State was that there was insufficient proof to establish that the accident had occurred while the constable was on duty.

The State pointed out that no FIR had been lodged in relation to the accident, which, according to them, raised doubts about the circumstances in which the incident had taken place. It was argued that in the absence of an FIR, it could not be conclusively determined that the injury was sustained during the course of official duty.

Additionally, the State referred to certain discrepancies in the Rojnamcha (daily diary entries) maintained by the police department. These discrepancies, it was contended, created further uncertainty regarding the factual background of the case and justified a cautious approach in granting benefits.

The State maintained that Special Disability Leave could only be granted when there was clear and unequivocal evidence that the injury was directly linked to the discharge of official duties. In the absence of such proof, it argued, the authorities were justified in withholding the benefits.

The respondent also emphasized the need to adhere strictly to procedural requirements and to ensure that public funds were not disbursed without proper verification. It was argued that granting benefits in cases where the facts were not fully established could set a precedent for misuse.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Anand Sharma, after carefully considering the submissions and evidence on record, delivered a judgment that strongly favored the petitioner and underscored the importance of a just and humane approach in such cases.

The Court began by examining the requirements of Rule 99 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which governs the grant of Special Disability Leave. It noted that two key conditions must be satisfied: first, that the injury must have been sustained while on duty, and second, that the injury must have resulted in a disability.

On the first condition, the Court found that the petitioner had produced a letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, which clearly stated that the constable was on duty at the time of the accident. The Court held that this official communication was sufficient to establish the fact that the injury was sustained in the course of duty.

On the second condition, the Court relied on the Unique Disability ID, which recorded an 85% disability. The Court observed that this was a credible and authoritative document issued by competent authorities and left no doubt about the extent of the injury.

Having found that both conditions were satisfied, the Court rejected the State’s objections based on the absence of an FIR and the alleged discrepancies in the Rojnamcha. The Court held that these factors, at best, created suspicion but did not constitute sufficient grounds to deny the legitimate benefits to the petitioner’s husband.

In a significant observation, the Court stated that mere suspicion or procedural irregularities cannot override substantive evidence and deprive an employee of benefits to which he is legally entitled. The Court emphasized that service rules must be interpreted in a manner that advances justice and not in a way that defeats it.

The Court also took note of the humanitarian aspect of the case, observing that the constable had been in a coma for several years and was entirely dependent on his family. The withholding of salary in such circumstances, the Court implied, was both unjust and insensitive.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and issued the following directions to the State:

To grant Special Disability Leave to the constable under Rule 99 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

To release the outstanding salary from 2021 till the date of the judgment.

To continue the payment of regular salary henceforth.

The judgment stands as a reaffirmation of the principle that the State, as an employer, has a duty of care towards its employees, particularly those who suffer injuries in the line of duty. It also highlights the need for a balanced approach that prioritizes fairness and justice over rigid adherence to procedural formalities.