Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr.Harsh Vardhan Bhati vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 December, 2017
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10282 / 2017
Dr. Harsh Vardhan Bhati S/o Late Shri Atmeshwar Bhati, Aged
About 53 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident of Fort Road, Inside
Nagori Gate, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Health Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health, Services, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The Deputy Secretary / Joint Secretary, Medical and Health
Department (Group-2), Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Director (Public Health), Medical and Health Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C
Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
4. The Additional Director (Gazetted), Medical and Health
Services, Government of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur.
5. The Superintendent / Additional Superintendent, Satellite
Hospital, Mandore, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Trilok Joshi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bissa.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 08/12/2017 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 8.6.2017 (Annex.22) passed by the respondents, whereby, the application made by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement has been rejected.
The petitioner is presently working as Junior Specialist (Orthopedics) Satellite Hospital, Mandore Jodhpur, and being (2 of 4) [CW-10282/2017] eligible under Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996'), as the petitioner completed 15 years of service in the year 2006, applied for grant of voluntary retirement.
The applications filed by the petitioner from time to time came to be rejected by orders dated 28.3.2013 (Annex.10), 5.6.2014 (Annex.15) & 4.1.2016 (Annex.16). Whereafter again, the petitioner filed application seeking voluntary retirement. By the impugned order dated 8.6.2017, the respondents observing that in public interest for the purpose of making available medical facilities to the general public and for administrative reasons, rejected the application.
Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for the reasons indicated in the application.
It is submitted that under the provisions of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996, the application can only be rejected in case any disciplinary proceedings are pending and/or the same are contemplated, however, no such reason has been indicated in the application and, therefore, the action of the respondents in repeatedly rejecting the petitioner's applications, cannot be countenanced.
Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in Dr. Kalpana Singh v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4526/2014, decided on 16.12.2014.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported (3 of 4) [CW-10282/2017] the order impugned. It was submitted that on account of scarcity/paucity of the doctors, the application made by the petitioner was rejected. Further submissions have been made that the petitioner cannot claim a right for being granted the voluntary retirement as and when he desired and, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
A bare look at the order dated 8.6.2017 (Annex.22) indicates that the reason indicated for rejection of application is 'public interest and for administrative reasons', the indication of administrative reasons in the order has not been supported in any manner even in the reply to the writ petition and the reason orally indicated is 'on account of scarcity/paucity of the doctors'.
This Court in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh (supra) after considering various submissions made in this regard, came to the following conclusion:-
"Thus, the rule in the present case is absolute except for the three exceptions mentioned above. There was nothing to stop the government from including the clause "public interest or "any other reason", in case, they had any intention or object behind refusing the voluntary retirement either in the interest of the public or otherwise. Thus, the petitioner was not suffering from any of the disqualification incorporated in the Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 making her ineligible from seeking voluntary retirement. No such provision or exception in the Rules has been brought to the notice of this Court, which may enable this Court to come to the conclusion that the State could reject the application on any other reasons except as mentioned in the rules. In the absence (4 of 4) [CW-10282/2017] of any such provision permitting the State to refuse voluntary retirement on the ground of public interest or any other valid reason, the Government is equally bound by the rules and other terms and condition of the service binding the parties."
In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh (supra), the reasons indicated by the respondents in rejecting the application made by the petitioner, cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 8.6.2017 is quashed and set aside. Since on account of the refusal of the prayer for voluntary retirement, the petitioner is continuing in service, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner shall be treated to be voluntary retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.2017. The respondents shall issue an appropriate order in this regard forthwith.
No order as to costs.
(ARUN BHANSALI)J. Sumit-29