SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
DR. ARUN KUMAR GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. AND 3 OTHERS – Respondent
WRIA 4655/2022



Advocates:
['RAKESH KUMAR', '', 'Sr Advocate', 'C S C']

Court No. - 34

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4655 of 2022

Petitioner :- Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar,Sr. Advocate

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioner and the

learned Standing Counsel representing respondents.

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 7.1.2022,

passed by respondent-1 Principal Secretary (Medical Health)

U.P. Lucknow, (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) and

consequential order dated 2.3.2022, passed by respondent-3 the

Chief Superintendent, Moti Lal Nehru Divisional Hospital,

District Allahabad (Annexure-15 to the writ petition).

Present writ petition came up for admission on 6.4.2022 and

this Court passed the following order:

"Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted ten days' time to

obtain instructions in the matter as to whether any case has been filed by

the petitioner against the order dated 10.04.2018 before the Hon'ble Apex

Court.

Put up as fresh on 19.04.2022. "

Record shows that petitioner is a member of the cadre of

Provincial Medical Service. During the course of employment,

petitioner was granted promotion. Ultimately, he was promoted

to L-IV category. The Services of petitioner are governed by

U.P. Medical Health Service Rules, 2004 as amended from time

to time. Lastly petitioner was posted as Senior Consultant

Surgeon at Moti Lal Nehru Divisional Hospital, District

Allahabad under the administrative control of respondent-3 the

Chief Superintendent, Moti Lal Nehru Divisional Hospital,

District Allahabad. Having completed more than 24 years of

service and upon attaining the age of approximately, 52 years,

petitioner submitted an application dated 12.4.2017, seeking

voluntary retirement.

Prayer made by petitioner, seeking voluntary retirement was

refused by State Government vide order dated 25.7.2017.

Aforesaid decision of State Government was communicated to

petitioner vide letter dated 17.8.2017, issued by Director

General and Medical Health Service, U.P. Lucknow, addressed

to respondent-3 the Chief Superintendent, Moti Lal Nehru

Divisional Hospital, District Allahabad.

It is the case of petitioner that he fulfils the requisite criteria as

provided in Rule 56 (c) of Fundamental Rules contained in

Financial Hand Book-II, inasmuch he had completed 20 years

of satisfactory services and no departmental proceedings were

pending against him.

Feeling aggrieved by orders dated 25.7.2017, and the letter

dated 17.8.217, referred to above, petitioner approached this

Court by means of Writ-A No. 61706 of 2017 (Dr. Arun Kumar

Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others). The said writ petition

was allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.4.2018, which

reads as under:

"We have heard Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned

standing

counsel

for

the

respondents.

By means of this writ petition, prayer has been made to issue a writ of

certiorari quashing the order dated 17.8.2017 passed by the Director

General, Medical & Health Service, Lucknow, respondent no.2 refusing to

accept voluntary retirement of the petitioner for the reason that there is

short coming of doctors and it will not be in public interest.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the similar matter being

Writ A No. 59606 of 2017 (Dr. Jogendra Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3

ors.) identical order was considered and this Court has quashed the order

of the Director General, Medical & Health Service, Lucknow in not

accepting the voluntary retirement for the aforesaid reasons.

The factum of the factual aspect has not been disputed by the learned

standing counsel.

Considering the facts that the facts of this case are identical to the facts

involved in Writ A No. 59606 of 2017 this writ petition is also a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top