Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Shafiq Ahmad - Appellant
Versus
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Dehradun and others – Respondent
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2338 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2174 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2179 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2182 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2184 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2186 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2211 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2212 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2258 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2259 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2260 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2280 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2298 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2306 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2315 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2340 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2344 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2348 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2349 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2353 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2382 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2386 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2407 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2467 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2469 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2476 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2494 of 2022, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 16 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 68 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No.67 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 78 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 86 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 87 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 88 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 89 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No.101 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 102 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 146 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 147 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 635 of 2023,
Decided on : 10-11-2023
Compulsory Retirement - Uttarakhand Transport Corporation - Rule 37 of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Employees (Other Than Officers) Service Rules, 2015 - The court set aside the communications and orders for compulsory retirement, citing discrimination, lack of medical examination, failure to constitute a review committee, and violation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, drivers/conductors at Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, were declared unfit for their posts due to health reasons and were given three months' notice for compulsory retirement. The petitioners challenged the communication and orders for compulsory retirement, citing discrimination, lack of medical examination, failure to constitute a review committee, and violation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the distinction made for compulsory retirement based on injuries sustained during on duty or off duty was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also noted that the petitioners were not medically examined before the notices for compulsory retirement were issued and no review committee was constituted to assess their performance. Additionally, the court found that the impugned communications and orders violated the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Issues: The issues raised included discrimination, lack of medical examination, failure to constitute a review committee, and violation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the distinction made for compulsory retirement based on injuries sustained during on duty or off duty was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also emphasized the need for medical examination before issuing notices for compulsory retirement and the constitution of a review committee to assess the performance of the employees.
Final Decision: The court set aside the communications and orders for compulsory retirement, and the petitioners were entitled to all consequential reliefs.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, they are taken up together and decided by this common judgment.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. All the petitioners were working as drivers/conductors in the respondent no.1/Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (“UTC”). While on service due to health reasons, they were declared unfit for the posts which they were holding. They were assigned some other work, on which they continued. But, suddenly on 01.09.2022, the UTC directed that all the drivers/conductors should work on the post at which they were appointed. They should not be assigned any other duties. On 09.09.2022 at the strength of Rule 37 of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Employees (Other Than Officers) Service Rules, 2015 (“the 2015 Rules”), the UTC informed all its Divisional Managers that all the drivers/conductors, except those who sustained injury while on duty, be compulsorily retired. Pursuant to it, all the petitioners were given three months’ notice with the directions that they shall be deemed to be compulsorily retired on the date specified in the respective notice.
4. The challenge in these petitions is made to the communication dated 09.09.2022 of the UTC, by which directions were issued to the Divisional Managers to compulsory retire the drivers, who are unfit to drive except those drivers, who sustained injuries while on duty. The challenge has also been made to the communication dated 19.09.2022/21.09.2022/22.09.2022/26.09.2022/03.10.2022 of the UTC by which the petitioners were given three months’ notice with an intimation that they shall be deemed to be compulsorily retired on future dates as specified in these communications. In the following writ petitions, the petitioners have also challenged the order by which they have been compulsorily retired:-
| SL No. | Case Number | Order by which compulsorily retired. |
| 1. | WPSS No. 2494 of 2022, Daleep Kumar Sharma Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director and others | 21.12.2022 |
| 2. | WPSS No. 3 of 2023, Pitamber Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director and others | 21.12.2022 |
| 3. | WPSS No.16 of 2023, Vinod Kumar Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and another | 22.12.2022 |
| 4. | WPSS No.67 of 2023, Gurumukh Singh Vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others | 22.12.2022 |
| 5. | WPSS No. 68 of 2023, Vishesh Kumar Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others | 20.12.2022 |
| 6. | WPSS No.78 of 2023, Bhanu Prakash Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others | 20.12.2022 |
| 7. | WPSS No.86 of 2023, Nagendra Pratap Singh Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others | 23.12.2022 |
| 8. | WPSS No.87 of 2023, Ravikant Shukla Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others | 23.12.2022 |
| 9. | WPSS No.88 of 2023, Ram Asray Shukla Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others | 23.12.2022 |
| 10. | WPSS No.89 of 2023, Satish Kumar Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others | 26.12.2022 |
| 11. | WPSS No.101 of 2023, Alok Williams Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand Dehradun and others | 23.12.2022 |
| 12. | WPSS No.102 of 2023, Amod Sharma Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others | 23.12.2022 |
| 13. | WPSS No.146 of 2023, Surendra Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and another | 10.01.2023 |
| 14. | WPSS No.147 of 2023, Malkeet Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Tra | |
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the distinction made for compulsory retirement based on injuries sustained during on duty or off duty was discriminatory and violated Article ....
The court established that the acceptance of monetary benefits under duress does not preclude the right to seek alternative employment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Point of Law : Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is an extension of “Doctrine of Pleasure”, If the employer - Union of India is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by continuing an emp....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order of compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the government, and the court will not interfere with such order....
The decision to compulsorily retire a government servant under FR 56(j) must be made in public interest, and judicial scrutiny is limited to cases of mala fide exercise of power or lack of evidence. ....
The assessment of an employee's entire service record is crucial for deciding on compulsory retirement, and the order must be based on proper grounds and subjective satisfaction of the authority.
The court held that compulsory retirement must be based on a comprehensive review of performance, not merely on pending allegations, ensuring due process is followed in such decisions.
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
