HP High Court: Section 20(4) of RPwD Act Applies Only to Disability Acquired During Service, Not to Those Recruited as Persons with Disability

A visually impaired District Inspector sought a supernumerary post at Rampur under the RPwD Act, 2016; the Himachal Pradesh High Court held the provision plainly inapplicable to his case.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla dismissed a writ petition filed by Shishu Pal Mehta, a 100% visually impaired government officer serving as District Inspector/District Audit Officer in the Co-operative Societies Department, who sought a direction to post him at Rampur by creating a supernumerary post under Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016). Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, sitting singly, held on 14 July 2026 that sub-section (4) of Section 20 is triggered only when an employee acquires a disability during service, and has no application to a person who was recruited specifically against a quota reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. The petition was dismissed as completely misconceived.

The Officer's Circumstances and the Relief Sought

Shishu Pal Mehta was initially appointed as an Inspector of Co-operative Societies on contract basis on 26 November 2018, against the quota reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. His services were regularised on 19 January 2022. A judgment of this Court dated 30 May 2025 in CWP No. 8963 of 2023 further regularised his services from the initial date of appointment. He was thereafter promoted to the post of District Inspector/District Audit Officer on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee.

His wife is 75% visually impaired, and they have a two-year-old child. The petitioner's case was that the topography of Shimla makes it impossible for him and his wife to manage daily life there, and that he should be posted at Rampur, his preferred station. He had previously approached this Court in CWP No. 17491 of 2025, which resulted in an order dated 15 December 2025 adjusting him at Shimla against the sanctioned post of District Inspector/District Audit Officer in place of his earlier posting at the Office of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Solan.

In the present petition, he sought three reliefs: a mandamus directing his transfer to Rampur; a direction to the respondents to finalise creation of a supernumerary post at Rampur; and permission to discharge duties at Rampur to ensure the safety of his life and his family's welfare.

The State's Position on Posting and Post Availability

The State, through the Deputy Advocate General, did not dispute the petitioner's disability or his service history. Its objection was structural: there is no post of District Inspector/District Audit Officer in the Office of Inspector Co-operative Societies, Rampur. The Office at Rampur is headed by an Inspector, who is the senior-most officer at that station. A District Inspector — the post the petitioner holds — is senior to the Inspector. Posting a District Inspector at a station that has no such sanctioned post would be administratively untenable.

The State added that it was not unwilling to accommodate the petitioner; it was prepared to consider posting him at any station where the post of District Inspector/District Audit Officer exists. The objection was specifically to the petitioner's insistence on Rampur, which the Deputy Advocate General characterised as totally arbitrary given the structural absence of a matching post there.

The petitioner relied on Annexure P-2, a communication dated 1 November 2025 from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, to the Secretary (Cooperation), which stated that if the petitioner were to be retained at Rampur on his promotion, a supernumerary post would need to be created under the proviso to Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act, 2016.

Reading Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act, 2016

Justice Goel set out the full text of Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016 before proceeding to analyse the petitioner's reliance on it. Section 20 deals with non-discrimination in employment. Sub-section (1) prohibits government establishments from discriminating against persons with disability in any matter relating to employment. Sub-section (2) requires provision of reasonable accommodation and a barrier-free environment. Sub-section (3) prohibits denial of promotion solely on the ground of disability. Sub-section (5) empowers the appropriate government to frame policies for posting and transfer of employees with disabilities.

Sub-section (4) is the provision the petitioner invoked. It reads: no government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service. Its first proviso states that if such an employee is not suitable for the post held after acquiring the disability, the employee shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. Its second proviso states that if adjustment against any post is not possible, the employee may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or until the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.

The Court's reading of the sub-section was straightforward. The operative phrase is “acquires a disability during his or her service.” The petitioner was not someone who developed a disability while in service. He was appointed to service precisely because he was a person with disability, recruited against the quota reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. Sub-section (4) and its provisos, including the supernumerary post mechanism, exist to protect an existing employee whose circumstances change mid-service. They do not extend to a person whose disability was the very basis of initial recruitment.

The Court held that the reliance placed on sub-section (4) by the petitioner, and equally by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in the November 2025 communication, was “totally misconceived and a result of misreading of this statutory provision.” The RPwD Act, 2016, as a scheme, does not provide for creation of a supernumerary post for adjustment of a person with disability who is appointed in that capacity from the outset.

On the Impossibility of Posting a Senior Officer at a Junior Station

Beyond the statutory question, the Court addressed the structural problem with the petitioner's demand. The Office of Inspector Co-operative Society at Rampur is headed by an Inspector. The District Inspector/District Audit Officer post that the petitioner holds is a rank senior to Inspector. In an office where the Inspector is the senior-most officer, there is simply no post superior to that Inspector to which a District Inspector could be lawfully assigned.

The Court was clear that this was not a case where a post of District Inspector existed at Rampur but was being withheld from the petitioner. The post did not exist there at all. A mandamus directing the authorities to post an officer at a place where the sanctioned post does not exist would amount to directing an administrative impossibility, and no court could issue such a direction.

Outcome

Justice Goel dismissed CWP No. 4521 of 2026 on 14 July 2026. The Court held that no mandamus could issue to direct the petitioner's posting at Rampur, where the post of District Inspector/District Audit Officer is not available, and that sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016 is not attracted on the facts of this case. All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.

The Court did, however, direct that wherever the post of District Inspector/District Audit Officer is available and the petitioner makes a request for adjustment at any such station, his request be considered sympathetically.