"If the petitioner's husband (employee) was suffering from paralysis and was not in a position of fit physical condition to attend the office, such a person definitely deserved protection from the State which is to act as a model employer and hence petitioner's husband was fully entitled to pay protection for the period he could not attend the office for the disease paralysis he suffered from," the Court said.

The judgment was rendered by the Court in response to a petition filed by the employee's wife, who acted as the petitioner in this case.

The petitioner's husband was employed as an orderly in the office of the Joint Inspector General of Registration before he passed away in 2020 following a bout of paralysis.

After the employee's passing, his wife sought the pension and other entitlements from the relevant authorities. Encountering obstacles in receiving the complete payment, she sought relief from the High Court. The Court strongly criticized the State for withholding the payment due to the employee's family, expressing dismay at the situation where the family had to survive without any financial support while he was bedridden due to paralysis. The Court found it distressing and disheartening to contemplate how the family managed during that challenging time without any income.

During the case's duration, certain entitlements were disbursed, yet the Court raised concerns regarding the State government's classification of the 967 days of the petitioner's husband's absence due to paralysis as extraordinary leave without pay. The State justified its decision based on the State's Financial Handbook rules. However, the Court dismissed this defense, emphasizing that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, being a Central law, held precedence over these rules, thus rejecting the State's argument.

The Court highlighted Section 20 of the 2016 Act, emphasizing its explicit provision against discrimination toward individuals with disabilities concerning employment matters. Specifically addressing paralysis as a form of disability, the Court reiterated that individuals experiencing paralysis would indeed be classified within the category of persons with disabilities outlined in the Act.

The Court, in response to the plea, granted approval and mandated the disbursement of arrears to the petitioner, who was the deceased employee's wife. Recognizing the undue hardship faced by the petitioner due to unjustifiable delays, the Court not only directed the payment but also ruled for an additional eight percent interest to be provided on the due amount. Additionally, the Court imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on the State government.