Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 964

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Rajesh Thakur - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondents
CWP No. 13820/2024
Decided On : 09-01-2025

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. V.D. Khidtta with Ms. Nitika Khidtta, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

The acceptance of a previously rejected application for voluntary retirement without following due process and principles of natural justice is illegal.

Headnote:
(A) Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 2022 - Rule 4(2)(c) - Premature retirement - Petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement was initially rejected; later accepted without following principles of natural justice - Court found that the acceptance of the application was illegal as it was based on a previously rejected request - Petitioner suffered from mental health issues, and the Medical Board had advised avoidance of triggering environments - Court ruled that the respondents acted arbitrarily by reconsidering the application without notice to the petitioner. (Paras 4.5, 4.6, 5.1, 5.3, 5.6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, suffering from Phobic Anxiety Disorder, applied for voluntary retirement on medical grounds after being subjected to a triggering work environment. His application was initially rejected but later accepted without proper procedure.

Findings of Court:
The court found the acceptance of the retirement application to be illegal and arbitrary, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural fairness.

Issues: The main issues were whether the respondents could accept a previously rejected application for voluntary retirement and whether the principles of natural justice were followed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once an application for voluntary retirement is rejected, it cannot be reconsidered without following due process and notifying the applicant.

Result: The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order is quashed, and the petitioner is reinstated.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

The case

Petitioner’s grievance is to the order dated04.11.2024 passed by respondent No.2 whereby his application for voluntary/premature retirement has been accepted. Petitioner’s contention is that his application for voluntary/premature retirement had already been considered and rejected by respondent No.2 earlier. Once that was done, his application was not available for further consideration. He had also not made any further request for reconsideration ofhis application as his circumstances had changed in the interregnum. Therefore, respondent’s subsequent action by considering his already rejected application without even taking him into confidence and retiring him prematurely is an absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional act, hence the petition.

2. Facts

2(i) Petitioner participated in a selection process undertaken by the H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board for appointment to the post of Steno-typist (on contract basis). He emerged successful and was appointed as such on 28.01.2013. He was directed to join the office of respondent No.3. Petitioner worked there till 2015. On 27.11.2015, petitioner was transferred to the office of respondent No.2.Petitioner’s services were regularized on 22.05.2017.

2(ii) CWP No.5003/2023 (Abhyendra Gupta Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.) was instituted in this Court. An order was passed therein on 12.12.2023 directing the State to make endeavour to post regular Steno-typist and Reader-cum-Assistant on deputation basis in the office of respondent No.3.

2(iii) It is the case of the petitioner that around this time (December 2023 onwards) he started suffering from ailments, which resulted in his frequent faintings, having panic attacks, suffering black-outs, involuntary body movements and frothing from mouth. He remained under treatment for mental illness, of the Doctors of Psychiatric Department Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC) Shimla.

2(iv) On 26.12.2023, petitioner was deputed as Steno- typist in the office of respondent No.3 till filling up of post by direct recruitment. Petitioner joined respondent No.3 on 05.01.2024.

2(v) It is further case of the petitioner that he remained under treatment for his mental sickness not only from the Psychiatric Department of IGMC but also of H.P. Hospital of Mental Health and Rehabilitation Shimla for further check up and treatment. Petitioner took leave for this purpose from time to time. On 26.02.2024, he was advised complete rest for a week. Petitioner joined back his office on 05.03.2024. He was asked to submit medical fitness certificate. He submitted the medical fitness certificate issued by H.P. Hospital of Mental Health and Rehabilitation Shimla. He again became sick on 22.03.2024 and had to be hospitalized till 05.04.2024. Doctors of H.P. Hospital of Mental Health and Rehabilitation Shimla recommended his case for constitution of the Medical Board. The Medical Board was accordingly constituted at IGMC Shimla on 05.04.2024. The Medical Board kept the petitioner under observation for 14 days and then on 05.04.2017 submitted its report. The Medical Board opined that the petitioner was suffering from “Phobic Anxiety Disorder Characterized by fear of specific situations allegedly in his current work place.” The Medical Board in its report further advised the petitioner “to avoid immediate exposure to the triggering environment and to undergo behavioral therapy on regular basis.”

2(vi) Petitioner through proper channel submitted a representation in April 2024 to respondent No.2 in view of report of the Medical Board for his transfer from office of respondent No.3. Petitioner’s representation was forwarded by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 on 09.04.2024. Respondent No.2 on 06.05.2024 sent a request letter to IGMC Shimla for constituting the Medical Board again.

2(vii) In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 issued a memo to the petitioner on 06.05.2024 calling upon him to explain his position regarding his non perfor