Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
State Of West Bengal & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Dr. Tonmoy Mondal - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2928 of 2019 [@ SLP [C] No.28608 of 2018]
Decided On : 12-03-2019
Rule 75 - Interpretation of West Bengal Service Rules, 1971 - Rule 75(a), 75(aa), 75(aaa)
Fact of the Case:
Dr. Tonmoy Mondal sought voluntary retirement, which was rejected by the State government on the ground of public interest. The West Bengal Administrative Tribunal allowed the application, but the High Court upheld the government's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court erred in reviewing the previous judgment and restored the original order, emphasizing the public interest involved in voluntary retirement under Rule 75.
Issues: Interpretation of Rule 75 of West Bengal Service Rules, 1971, and the consideration of public interest in voluntary retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The public interest involved in voluntary retirement under Rule 75 should be a key consideration, and the court should not readily interfere with previous judgments unless there is an apparent error on the face of the record.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 20.01.2017 is set aside, and the judgment and order dated 22.08.2014 are restored. The respondent is directed to report back to duty within one month from today.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The interpretation of Rule 75 of the West Bengal Service Rules, 1971, is central to the case, focusing on the provisions for voluntary retirement and retirement in public interest (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The case involves a government employee seeking voluntary retirement, which was initially rejected on the grounds of public interest, citing the necessity to retain doctors for public welfare (!) (!) (!) .
The administrative tribunal initially allowed the employee's application for voluntary retirement, but the High Court reversed this decision, emphasizing the importance of public interest and the need to examine each case objectively (!) (!) (!) .
A subsequent review petition led to a different judgment, which reversed the High Court's order and restored the tribunal's decision, based on an interpretation of the rules and the record (!) (!) .
The court observed that the review process was improperly exercised, as it involved re-evaluating the merits rather than correcting an apparent error on the face of the record, which is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction (!) (!) (!) .
The court clarified that Rule 75 (aaa) permits voluntary retirement after certain age thresholds, with the requirement that the appointing authority record its opinion that the retirement is in public interest (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The concept of public interest is a significant factor in decisions regarding voluntary retirement, especially when the retention of qualified professionals like doctors is essential for public welfare (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the original judgment, which correctly interpreted the rules and considered the public interest, should not have been disturbed by the subsequent review, as no apparent error on the face of the record was demonstrated (!) (!) (!) .
The final decision set aside the impugned order, restored the earlier judgment, and directed the employee to report back to duty within one month, with the understanding that wages for the period of absence would not be paid (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores that decisions affecting public interest, especially in essential services like healthcare, are to be made with due regard to the rules and the broader societal needs, and courts should exercise restraint in interfering with such administrative decisions unless clear errors are evident.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The question involved in the appeal is the interpretation of Rule 75 of West Bengal Service Rules, 1971 [hereinafter 'Rules'] framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
3. The respondent-Dr. Tonmoy Mondal had joined services initially on 20.10.1986 as a Medical Officer in West Bengal Health Services on ad hoc basis. He was confirmed in the said post vide Notification dated 15.11.2002. On 16.11.2011, he sought voluntary retirement. The prayer made by the respondent was rejected by the Government vide order dated 22.02.2013 on the ground that it was not considered appropriate in the public interest to accept the request for voluntary retirement. Following is the relevant portion of the order:
"We know that the public interest is the welfare or well-being of general people. The welfare of the general public is ensured, inter alia, through recognization, promotion, and protection of the same by the Government or its agencies. The Government or its department cannot adversely affect the rights, health, and finance of the public at large. The applicant, i.e. Dr. Tanmoy Mondal is a doctor and his service is indispensable in public interest. At this stage, the Health & Family Welfare Department is having many vacancies and it is necessary to retain doctors to provide service to people.
Considering all these aspects, I am inclined to hold that it is not in public interest to retire Dr. Mondal. Consequently, it appears to me that the prayer of Dr. Tanmoy Mondal should be rejected. Moreover, voluntary retirement of a member of Health Services is not maintainable as per provisions laid down in DCRB Rules."
4. The respondent questioned the aforesaid order by way of filing Original Application No.754 of 2013 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 18.11.2013 allowed the application and quashed the order passed by the State government declining voluntary retirement. The State of West Bengal filed Writ Petition being WPST No.208/2014 in the High Court at Calcutta challenging the same.
5. The Division Bench of the High Court initially vide judgment and order dated 22.08.2014 opined that according to Note 3 below Rule 75(aaa) of the Rules, every case of retirement under Rule 75 is to be examined by the appointing authority on the facts of the case concerned. Permission granted to one Medical Officer to retire under the Rule cannot necessarily lead to the conclusion that another Medical Officer seeking to retire under the Rule is also entitled to the permission. The extent of public interest involved in the case is to be examined by the appointing authority objectively and the opinion formed by the appointing authority as to the existence of public interest cannot be judicially reviewed unless it is the case that it was recorded with malice or ex facie without any basis. It was opined that the application for voluntary retirement under Rule 75 (aaa) of the Rules has nothing to do with the right not to work. The question is whether the right to seek voluntary retirement is an absolute right. It is not a case of resignation. While setting aside the order of the Tribunal dated 18.11.2013, the High Court upheld the order passed by the State Government declining to accept the prayer for voluntary retirement.
6. A Special Leave Petition was preferred in this Court against the decision dated 22.08.2014 rendered by the High Court. However, it was withdrawn on the ground that there were certain errors apparent on the face of the record of the order passed by the High Court and as such the petitioner wanted to file a review petition. Permission was granted to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with liberty to file a review petition.
7. Thereafter, pursuant to the aforesaid order, review petition R.V.W. No.18/2015 in WPST No.208 of 2014 was filed in the High Court. The same has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.01
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
