The appointing authority can refuse permission to a government employee to retire under Rule 75(aaa) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part I if it is of the opinion that the permission to retire would be contrary to public interest.

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.

The five petitioners in the WPST under Article 226 of the Constitution of India dated August 5, 2014 are questioning an order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal dated November 18, 2013 allowing the respondents OA No. 754 of 2013.

2. The respondent was in the West Bengal Health Services. He was working as Medical Officer in Bolpur S.D. Hospital in the district Birbhum. On November 25, 2011 he applied in prescribed form for voluntary retirement with effect from February 17, 2012. Although no decision was taken on the application, the respondent stopped attending office and discharging duties from March 1, 2012.

3. Then alleging inaction on the part of his appointing authority in that the authority did not take necessary decision on his application for voluntary retirement, the respondent moved the Tribunal by filing an OA No. 710 of 2012. By an order dated July 31, 2012 the Tribunal disposed of the OA on its admission day recording that in spite of notice none appeared for the respondents therein and directing the Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of West Bengal to take a decision on the respondents application for voluntary retirement.

4. In compliance with the order the Principal Secretary gave a decision dated February 22, 2013 rejecting the respondents application for voluntary retirement saying as follows:-

"We know that the public interest is the welfare or well being of general people. The Welfare of 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."

5. Questioning the decision of the Principal Secretary the respondent moved the OA that the Tribunal allowed by the impugned order recording that, in spite of notice, nobody appeared for the Health & Family Welfare Department to contest it. In WPST para-5 the petitioners have stated that the Tribunal allowed the OA ex parte on the date of admissions itself and without giving them any opportunity of filing Reply.

6. Referring to r.75(aaa) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part I (admittedly the rule was applicable to the respondents case), the Tribunal said as follows:-

"It would appear that there is specific provision for voluntary retirement of a State Govt. employee in rule 75(aaa) of WBSR Part 1. It appears that relating to prayer of voluntary retirement, there has been further clarification issued by the Govt. time to time and the sum and substance of such rule appears to be fulfilment of certain condition by the willing Govt. employee desiring to avail of the privilege of voluntary retirement."

7. After referring to r. 75(aaa), the Tribunal made the following comments:-

"It is pertinent to mention that while rejecting the prayer of voluntary retirement of the present Petitioner, the department of Health and Family Welfare did not mention any latches or any lacking of condition by the Petitioner regarding his prayer of voluntary retirement, but, the department recorded that for public interest and specifically, for dearth of Medical Officer and keeping in mind the requirement of ailing people of the State, the prayer of voluntary retirement cannot be considered."

8. The order of the Tribunal reveals that advocate for the respondent contended before the Tribunal that since the rule did not provide that citing public interest the respondents appointing authority could reject the respondents prayer for voluntary retirement, the Principal Secretary rejected the prayer citing public interest going beyond the rule.

9. The Tribunal accepted the contention and said as follows:-

"