Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Niraj Kumar Srivastava, Neelima Jaiswal.

Parties

• Petitioner: Anuradha Singh, employed as Head Assistant at Malkhan Singh District Hospital, Aligarh, appointed on 28.10.1992, aged about 55 years, suffering from severe physical and mental ailments. (!)
• Respondents: State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secy. Medical And Health Services, and 2 others. (!)

Relief Sought

• Quash impugned order dated 23.8.23 passed by opposite party no.2 (Annexure no.1). (!) (!)
• Restrain implementation of impugned order dated 23.8.2023. (!)
• Command opposite parties to calculate and disburse post-retiral dues immediately. (!)

Facts

• Petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules after 30 years of service, fulfilling all conditions. (!)
• Medical certificate from Mother's Institute of Neuro Psychiatric Disorders dated 28.05.2023 certifies severe depression with severe anxiety neurosis since 04.04.2016, requiring long rest and assistance for work. (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Orthopedic prescription dated 25.05.2023 certifies progressive cervical spondylosis with cervical slip disc, severe left-sided radiculopathy, suspected inflammatory arthritis, recurrent joint pains; advises against prolonged sitting, desk/writing work, traveling, household work; condition unlikely to improve. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Petitioner submitted representations dated 30.05.2023, 31.07.2023, and 22.08.2023 seeking voluntary retirement due to medical conditions. (!)

Impugned Order

• Competent authority rejected voluntary retirement application vide order dated 23.08.2023 due to scarcity of employees in Group-C clerical cadre. (!) (!)

Arguments

• Employer has discretion to accept or reject voluntary retirement applications, but must exercise it judiciously, not arbitrarily; rejection reason must be valid and legal. (!)
• Forcing petitioner to work in critical medical condition risks irreparable harm, endangering life and violating Article 21 right to life and personal liberty. (!)
• Department's scarcity reason invalid as it ignores petitioner's condition, leading to potential loss of life or self-harm; application made under compelling circumstances, not casually. (!)

Court's Findings and Ratio

• Denial arbitrary, lacks justification given critical medical condition; discretion must be exercised judiciously. (!) (!)
• Compelling medical circumstances warrant acceptance to prevent irreparable harm. (!)

Decision

• Writ petition allowed. (!)
• Impugned order dated 23.08.2023 quashed. (!)
• Opposite party no.2 directed to pass fresh order considering petitioner's medical condition, in accordance with law, within 4 weeks of certified copy; consequential orders for post-retiral dues/benefits forthwith. (!)
• No order as to costs. (!)