Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Anuradha Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P., Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical And Health Services, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow And 2 Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 9427 of 2023
Decided On : 12-07-2024
VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT - EMPLOYEE RIGHTS - Fundamental Rules, Rule 56; Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules regarding voluntary retirement and Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing the right to life and personal liberty. The court interpreted these provisions to highlight that the employer's refusal to grant voluntary retirement under compelling medical circumstances was arbitrary and violated the petitioner's fundamental rights. This legal framework influenced the court's decision to quash the impugned order and direct the employer to reconsider the application for voluntary retirement in light of the petitioner's medical condition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee suffering from severe physical and mental ailments, requested voluntary retirement after 30 years of service. Despite fulfilling the conditions for voluntary retirement under Rule 56, her request was denied by the competent authority due to employee scarcity in her department.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement was arbitrary and lacked proper justification, given her critical medical condition. The court emphasized that compelling circumstances warranted the acceptance of her application to prevent irreparable harm.
Issues: Whether the competent authority's refusal to grant voluntary retirement to the petitioner, based on employee scarcity, was valid in light of her severe medical conditions and fundamental rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the employer has discretion in accepting voluntary retirement applications, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The refusal to grant retirement under the circumstances presented violated the petitioner's right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the competent authority was directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement, taking into account her medical condition and to ensure timely disbursement of her post-retiral dues.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
1. Heard Sri Niraj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties.
2. In the present case, pleadings are complete, therefore, learned counsels for the parties have requested that the matter may be heard and disposed of finally.
3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main reliefs:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.8.23, passed by the opposite party no.2 contained in Annexure no. 1.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus restraining the opposite parties to give effect to the operation and implementation of the impugned orders dated 23.8.2023 contained in Annexure no.1.
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to calculate the entire post retiral dues within a shortest stipulated time and to disburse the same to the petitioner immediately."
4. This is a peculiar case where the petitioner, who is an employee and is suffering from physical and mental ailment severely, is not able to discharge her duties, therefore, she requested for voluntary retirement after completing 30 years of services. She is aged about 55 years and in view of Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules, Volume-2, Part 2 to 4 of the Financial Hand Book, she is fulfilling all required conditions to get voluntary retirement. To be more precise, the petitioner was appointed in the Department on 28.10.1992 and she was serving at Malkhan Singh District Hospital, Aligarh on the post of Head Assistant.
5. Attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner towards Annexure No.2 of the writ petition, which is a Medical Certificate issued from Mother's Institute of Neuro Psychiatric Disorders (MIND), E-106, Sector-41, Noida (UP), which reads as under:-
"MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
Date-28 May, 2023
This is to certify that Mr. Anuradha Singh, W/o Sh. Arvind Singh is receiving treatment from our clinic from 04 April 2016 onwards to till date. she has been severely depressed with seven anxiety neurosis. Despite medication and psychologist therapies, she is not fully recovered and still needs someone along with her for any work. She is advised to take long rest along the ongoing medicines for an early and better amelioration of her symptoms.
28.05.2023"
6. Further attention has been drawn towards the prescription of the Orthopedic Surgeon dated 25.05.2023, which reads as under:-
"Certified that I have been treating Ms Anuradha Singh, whose signatures are attested below, since 2015, for various Orthopedic issues, chiefly being PROGRESSIVE CERVICAL SPONDYLOSIS WITH CERVICAL SLIP DISC CAUSING SEVERE LEFT SIDED RADICULOPATHY with SUSPECTED INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS which causes RECURRENT MULTIPLE JOINT PAINS.
Based on this I recommend that she should not indulge in following activities.
1. Prolonged sitting.
2. Prolonged desk work / writing work.
3. Traveling.
4. Household work.
Being progressive in nature, her medical condition is unlikely to improve."
7. In the light of aforesaid compelling medical circumstances, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 30.05.2023 to the Director (Administration), Medical and Health Services, U.P., Lucknow (Annexure No.4) and again on 31.07.2023 to the same authority (Annexure No.5) apprising her physical and mental condition seeking voluntary retirement indicating therein that she is fulfilling all the requisite conditions to get the voluntary retirement. She has preferred a reminder representation through registered post on 22.08.2023 (Annexure No.6).
8. Further attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.7 of the writ petition, which is a case law of the Apex Court laid down in the case of Manjushree Pathak v. Assam Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. and Others, (2000) 7 SCC 390, referring para-16 thereof, which reads as under:-
"16. The Division Bench
AI
The refusal to grant voluntary retirement under compelling medical circumstances can constitute a violation of an employee's fundamental right to life and personal liberty, necessitating a judicious ....
The court affirmed that accepted voluntary resignation cannot be reversed without substantial legal grounds or evidence, particularly concerning mental health claims made after acceptance.
An employee can withdraw a request for voluntary retirement before it becomes effective, as established by Supreme Court precedent.
The discretion to accept or reject voluntary retirement applications must be exercised judiciously, considering the employee's circumstances and not arbitrarily.
Court directs expeditious disposal of voluntary retirement application post-medical verification, without merits adjudication.
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
