Adherence to the rule of law and justification for differential treatment of similar cases

JUDGMENT

1. The case of the petitioner is that he moved an application for voluntarily retirement on 1.1.2018 setting out his personal and family reasons therefor. Pursuant thereto vide letter dated 12.2.2018, the Director, Health and Medical Services, Jaipur informed the Joint Secretary, Health and Medical (Group-2) Department that there was no departmental enquiry or any lis pending against the petitioner. However vide order dated 13.3.2018 the petitioners application for voluntary retirement under Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereafter the Rules of 1996) has been arbitrarily rejected on the misdirection extraneous to Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 holding that it was necessary to retain the petitioner as a Doctor in service of the Government for general public and administrative reason.

2. Mr. Abhi Goyal counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue agitated in this petition is fully covered by the judgment passed by the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Others SBCWP No. 4526/2014 decided on 16.12.2014. He submitted that in the aforesaid judgment of Dr. Kalpana Singh (supra), the petitioner therein has been granted relief as prayed for by her as none of the conditions relevant to refusal of voluntary retirement obtained. Thereafter in the case of Dr. Hari Mohan Gupta v. State of Rajasthan & Others SBCWP No. 13005/2016, was decided on 3.4.2017 in terms of the judgment passed in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh (supra). Both Dr. Kalpana Singh and Dr. Hari Mohan Gupta have since been accordingly allowed to voluntary retire in compliance with the aforesaid judgments.

3. Mr. Prakhar Gupta appearing for Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG sought time to file reply.

4. I am of the considered view that aside of the reply it is important for this Court to comprehend as to why the state of law enunciated by the Court and complied with by the state itself in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh (supra) and Dr. Hari Mohan Gupta (supra) is being overlooked in similar cases. What are the circumstances in which the Department takes a contra view in subsequent similar matters ? The words rule of law are not empty rhetoric. Rule of law needs adherence by those in the administration. Mechanical breaches either of statutory law or that declared by this Court as in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh and Dr. Hari Mohan Gupta (supra) can not be countenanced. In this view of the matter, I would direct the Principal Secretary, Department of Medial and Health, Govt. of Rajasthan to file an affidavit stating as to how the case of the petitioner is different on material aspects from the cases of Dr. Kalpana Singh (supra) and Dr. Hari Mohan Gupta (supra).

5. Let the affidavit as directed hereinabove be filed by 31.5.2019.