The Allahabad High Court, in a petition challenging the grant of voluntary retirement to a Head Assistant suffering from physical and mental ailment, observed that if the petitioner is compelled to discharge her duties, she may suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money her life may be endangered, in that way, her Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would be violated.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was serving at Malkhan Singh District Hospital, Aligarh on the post of Head Assistant. Since she is suffering from physical and mental ailment severely, she was not able to discharge her duties. Therefore, after completing 30 years in service, petitioner requested for voluntary retirement. Being 55 years of age, she was eligible for voluntary retirement under Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules, Volume-2, Part 2 to 4 of the Financial Handbook. Petitioner obtained a Medical Certificate issued from Mother's Institute of Neuro - Psychiatric Disorders (MIND) stating that she was severely depressed with seven anxiety neurosis. A certificate from the petitioner's Orthopedic Surgeon was also produced before the Court, which stated that the petitioner ought not to indulge in prolonged sitting, desk work, writing work, travelling and household work. The petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement was rejected on the grounds that there was a scarcity of employees in the Group-C clerical cadre.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that despite the aforesaid critical physical and mental condition of the petitioner and also despite the fact that she was fulfilling all the requisite conditions to get the voluntary retirement, her request has been turned down by the competent authority only for the reason that since there is a scarcity of the employees in Group-C clerical cadre, therefore, she may not be granted voluntary retirement.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent stated that the competent authority has jurisdiction to turn down such application of an employee inasmuch as this is the prerogative of the employer to accept the application for voluntary retirement or to turn down the same, and if the reason to turn down such application is valid and legal, the same should not interfere in the routine manner.
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that if the petitioner is compelled to discharge her duties, she may suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money inasmuch as on account of suffering from severe depression with seven anxiety neurosis and she is taking heavy medication regarding mental ailment as well as she is not able for prolonged sitting or prolonged desk work/ writing work as per the specific opinion of the Orthopedic Surgeon, her life may be endangered, in that way, her Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would be violated. Further, it was stated that every citizen of the country has having Fundamental Right to life and personal liberty and that the right to life may not be violated without having any cogent and proper reason.
Further, the court stated that the reason so indicated by the employer is not proper in the case of the present petitioner to the effect that if the Department does not have proper employees and the petitioner is compelled to discharge her duties in such a critical medical condition, she may likely to lose her life or she may likely to cause damage to herself. Further, it was stated that this is not a case where the petitioner has applied for voluntary retirement in a casual manner only after completing the requisite term of service and attaining the age, but it appears that her application for seeking voluntary retirement has been filed under serious, compelling circumstances and thus the reason so indicated in the impugned order suffers from perversity, arbitrariness and given without proper application of mind.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the opposite party.
Case Title: X vs. State of U.P.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Case No.: WRIT - A No. - 9427 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Niraj Kumar Srivastava, Neelima Jaiswal
Advocate for the Respondent: C.S.C.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
