Bombay High Court
Mahananda Mahadev Jaybhaye Munde vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 25 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:32365-DB
(1) 901-WP-2465-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2465 OF 2025
Dr. Mahananda Mahadev Jaybhaye-Munde
Age: 51 years, Occu: Presently household,
R/o. Laxmi Bagh Colony,
Near Government Guest House,
Nagar Road, Beed. ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through Its Principal Secretary,
Public Health Department,
10th Floor, GT Hospital Compound,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2] The Commissioner,
Public Health Department,
Arogya Bhavan, Saint George Hospitals
Compound, Mumbai- 400 001.
3] The Director,
Public Health Department,
Aroya Bhavan, Saint George Hospitals,
Compound, Mumbai- 400 001.
4] The Deputy Director of Health Services,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Region,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. ...RESPONDENTS
.....
(2) 901-WP-2465-2025
Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4-State.
.....
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J J.
RESERVED ON : 18th NOVEMBER 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 25th NOVEMBER 2025.
JUDGMENT :
- [PER KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
1. Heard Mr. Jadhavar, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, and
Mr. Lakhotiya, the learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 -State.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 29 th
January 2025, passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, (for short "Tribunal"), Mumbai, Bench at
Aurangabad, in Original Application No.586 of 2024.
4. The learned Member, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, by way
of impugned Judgment and Order, was pleased to dismiss the Original
(3) 901-WP-2465-2025
Application filed by the petitioner. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the State
and its Authorities.
5. The facts in short, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that
the petitioner joined the services of the Respondents as a Medical Officer
on 22nd June 2002. She lost her husband due to a heart attack. On 31 st
January 2023, being a single parent, she filed an application seeking
earned leave for the period from 27th February 2023 to 17th March 2023
for the examination of her daughter. The said leave was not sanctioned,
looking to the responsibilities attached to her post. The petitioner gave
notice for voluntary retirement on 5th April 2023 to take effect from 4 th
July 2023. The reasons stated in the application were that she had lost
her husband due to a heart attack and that she suffers from
hypertension, hyperlipidemia with IBS. On 17th April 2023, she changed
her mind and prayed that her application seeking voluntary retirement
be allowed to be withdrawn. On 2nd May 2023, the Joint Secretary, State
Government directed Respondent No.3 - Director of Public Health
Department, to send a detailed proposal of retirement alongwith an
(4) 901-WP-2465-2025
opinion on her application. By communication dated 30 th June 2023 by
the Joint Secretary, State Government informed the petitioner that since
her services were required by the State, her notice of resignation was not
accepted. However, by another communication dated 4 th July 2023, her
resignation came to be accepted. The petitioner thus stood retired from
4th July 2023. Till this stage, there is no dispute.
6. The petitioner, however, subsequently, after four months of
retirement i.e. on 20th November 2023 wrote an application to the
Principal Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai,
stating that she had filed an application for voluntary retirement under
depression. She stated that she was suffering from depression as she was
required to stay away from her children and also due to health reasons.
She also stated that she had not accepted any other job. She had not
started private practice. On this letter, the Chief Administrative Officer,
Health Services Commissionerate, Mumbai, informed that there is no
provision of taking back a person into service after resignation is
accepted and acted upon, by referring Rules 66(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) of the
(5) 901-WP-2465-2025
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to
as "Pension Rules"), and directed the Deputy Director of Health Services,
Chh. Sambhajinagar, to inform the petitioner that it was not possible to
take her back in service after voluntary retirement.
7. The petitioner thereafter approached Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Aurangabad by filing an Application. It is prayed that it be
held and declared that the order dated 4 th July 2023 is illegal and
arbitrary, as it was passed without considering the withdrawal of
voluntary retirement notice dated 5th April 2023 by her application
dated 17th April 2024.
8. The learned Member (J.) of the Tribunal dismissed the Original
Application vide order dated 29th January 2025 by considering Rule 66
Sub-Rule (5) of the Pension Rules. The learned Member also considered
various judgments. Being aggrieved by this Order, the Petitioner has
approached this Court.
(6) 901-WP-2465-2025
9. Mr. Jadhavar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, vehemently
argued that while dismissing the Original Application, the learned
Member did not properly consider the provisions. His main argument
before this Court is that, in view of provisions of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Disabilities Act"),
the authorities ought to have considered that the petitioner was
suffering from mental disability and ought not to have accepted the
resignation. Section 2(5) of the Disabilities Act includes the mental
illness. Since the application was filed when the petitioner was not in a
fit state of mind, the authorities ought to have protected her services.
His further argument is that the learned Member did not consider Rule
41 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981. He submits
that the provisions of Disabilities Act are special provisions and those
will prevail upon the general statute i.e. Maharashtra Civil Services
(Pension) Rules. From the facts of giving resignation, withdrawing the
same after few days and again making a request by the petitioner would
show that she was under disturbed mental condition. Being authorities
(7) 901-WP-2465-2025
from the Health Department, they ought to have noticed all these things.
The authorities, therefore, should have refrained from accepting the
resignation.
10. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate for the
petitioner relied upon the following judgments.
(i) Bhagwan Dass Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board1;
(ii) Kunal Singh Vs. Union of Indian and Anr.2;
(iii) Geetaben Ratilal Patel Vs. District Primary Education Officer3;
11. Mr. Lakhotiya, the learned AGP for Respondents-State vehemently
opposes the petition. He submits that the petitioner has now developed a
new case and is seeking protection under Section 20 of the Disabilities
Act. This was not her case before the Tribunal in the Original
Application. The learned Member of the Tribunal has rightly passed the
order. The judgments cited by the petitioner are not applicable since in
1 AIR 2008 SC 990
2 AIR 2003 SC 1623
3 AIR 2013 SC 3092
(8) 901-WP-2465-2025
those judgments, from the beginning, it was a case that the employees
therein were suffering from disabilities, and it was on record. In the
present case, the case of disability is made out after four months of
retirement. Once the employee stands retired, there is no question of
setting the clock back. There is no ground raised that any procedural
lapse is there in accepting the resignation. He submits that, by now, the
petitioner has withdrawn all service benefits like GPF, Leave Encashment
etc. The petitioner is thus now estopped from claiming continuance in
service. The learned AGP further submits that, at no point of time, the
petitioner has ever produced any material in support of her contention
that she has acquired a disability, except the averments in the petition.
He therefore prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
12. In support of his submission, the learned AGP relied upon the
judgment in the case of Gajanan s/o. Siddappa Maitri Vs. The Union of
India and Ors. passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2442/2019
decided on 26.04.2019.
(9) 901-WP-2465-2025
13. In the case of Bhagwan Dass (supra), the appellant therein was an
employee of Punjab State Electricity Board. The employee became blind
while in service. An application was made requesting the Board to retire
the employee from service. A certificate was also issued to that effect by
the Civil Surgeon. His services were terminated on the ground of
acquiring disability while in service. It was held that in view of Section
47 of the Disabilities Act, the Board could not have allowed the
employee to retire from service on the ground that he is unfit to work.
The appellant therein had sought to explain his absence from duty. He
even requested that his wife be employed in his place. The Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the authorities though were aware of the provision of
Section 47, acted in insensitive manner and allowed the appeal of the
appellant.
14. In the case of Kunal Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
observed that the fact that the appellant acquired 'disability' within the
meaning of Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act as his left leg was
amputated on account of gangrene while in service is undisputed.
( 10 ) 901-WP-2465-2025
Because of this, he was invalidated from service by the respondent on
the report of the Medical Board, as he became permanently
incapacitated for further service. Writ Petition filed in the High Court
came to be dismissed. The Hon'ble Apex Court noticed that no argument
was advanced on the basis of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995. A specific ground was raised in the Special Leave Petition. The
Hon'ble Apex Court accepted the case of the appellant therein and
allowed the appeal. The termination of the appellant came to be set
aside. It was directed to give him an appointment and to place him on
any other suitable job.
15. In the case of Geetaben Ratilal Patel (supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the employee therein proceeded on medical leave
without producing any type of leave report. She was absent
unauthorisedly without producing any leave report even thereafter. A
notice was therefore issued calling for an explanation for her absence.
No explanation was received to the notice dated 31 st December 1999.
( 11 ) 901-WP-2465-2025
The employee directly joined the duties on 25 th November 2000. She
again went on leave without pay. Thereafter she was served with a
charge-sheet and explanation was called. Neither any explanation nor
any medical report was submitted. The matter was thereafter referred to
higher authorities. A final notice was issued calling for explanation for
continuous absence. Thereafter she was dismissed from service. For
about three years, no action was taken by appellant. It was thereafter
that she filed an application before the Commissioner under Section 62
of the Disabilities Act challenging the dismissal order being violative of
Section 47(1) of the Disabilities Act. It was brought on record that she
was suffering from mental depression which resulted in 40% to 70%
mental disability. A certificate issued to that effect by the Medical Board
was also produced before the Commissioner. The Commissioner on such
report held the order to be void. The Management challenged the said
order by filing writ petition in the High Court. The learned Single Judge
allowed the Special Civil Application. In an appeal, the Division Bench
affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The order of the
( 12 ) 901-WP-2465-2025
Division Bench was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the Appeal considering the provisions of
Section 47 of the Disabilities Act.
16. In the case of Gajanan s/o. Siddappa Maitri (supra), a question
was as to whether an employee is entitled to withdraw his notice of
voluntary retirement after the intended date of retirement specified in
the notice. This Court considered the provisions of Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules. In that case, a notice of voluntary retirement from
intended date was given. It was not withdrawn till such intended date.
After the retirement/resignation was accepted and had come into force,
a petition was thereafter filed seeking relief that the voluntary
retirement notice be cancelled. This Court considered that the
government employees will have locus poenitentiae to withdraw his
request for voluntary retirement only before the intended date of
retirement and not thereafter. It is also held that the relationship of
employer and employee is governed by statutory Rules. The statutory
Rules would thus bind the parties. No deviation can be permitted from
( 13 ) 901-WP-2465-2025
the Rule.
17. In the present case, the facts are undisputed. It is rightly submitted
by the learned AGP that except her averment in the petition, she has not
produced any material to show that she was suffering from any mental
disability. It is only the case that after her voluntary resignation was
accepted, one friend of her found abnormal behavior of the petitioner
and took her to psychiatric and it is thereupon the psychiatric gave
opinion that she is suffering from death depression. However, no such
certificate is produced on record. It is also a matter of record that before
the Tribunal, no such ground of disability was raised. For the first time,
such ground is raised in this writ petition. It is further seen that the
resignation was rightly accepted by following due procedure from the
intended date. Notice of three months was given on 5 th April 2023. The
resignation was accepted from 4th July 2023. No illegality is committed.
18. By way of writ petition, the petitioner is seeking something which
is against the Rules by making out a different case in the writ petition for
( 14 ) 901-WP-2465-2025
the first time. No illegality is pointed out on the part of the authorities in
accepting the voluntary resignation. It is only urged that the authorities
should have noticed abnormal behavior of the petitioner and should
have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is suffering from mental
disability. At the same time, as a matter of fact, till now, no such material
is produced even before this Court.
19. In the case of State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Harish Chandra and Ors.4,
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the writ jurisdiction cannot be used to
direct the authorities to act in violation of the Rules or against the law. It
was a matter of recruitment. The select list was prepared and some of
the candidates were placed on the waiting list. It was the case that the
waiting list exhausted on completion of one year. Rule 26 of the U.P.
Sub-ordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985,
reads as under:
"26. Appointment by appointing authority. - The select list referred
to in sub-rules (b) and (7) of Rule 23 shall be forwarded by the
Selection Committees to the appointing authority mentioning the
aggregate marks obtained at the selection by each candidates. The
4 (1996) 9 SCC 309
( 15 ) 901-WP-2465-2025
name of general and reserve candidates shall be arranged by the
appointing authority in a common list according to the merit of the
candidates and the appointment shall be offered in the order in
which the names are arranged in the list shall hold good for a period
of one year from the date of selection."
20. It was a case before the High Court that the waiting list would not
expire after a period of one year and appointment was sought for a
person from waiting list. The High Court held that the list would not
expire after a period of one year which was also held to be erroneous on
the face of it. Thus, this Court finds that allowing the writ petition would
amount to directing the authorities to act against the Rule, which is nor
permissible.
21. One more aspect needs to be considered that if it was really a case
of disability of the petitioner then she ought to have approached the
Commissioner under Disabilities Act. It is the Commissioner who has
power under the said Act to grant appropriate relief. Not approaching
the Commissioner at the first instance also shows that the theory of
disability is develop only after loosing before MAT. For this reason also, it
is clear that this is not a case under the Disabilities Act.
( 16 ) 901-WP-2465-2025
22. For all the reasons recorded herein, this Court finds it difficult to
allow the writ petition. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
(ii) Rule stands discharged.
[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
D.A.Ethape
