Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Sayani P.S vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 6 December, 2017
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11186 / 2017
Smt. Sayani P.S. W/o Shri Yohnnan Chako, Aged About 59 Years,
Presently Working As L.H.V., Office of Block Chief Medical Officer,
Sumerpur, District Pali (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Medical &
Health Services, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Admn.), Department of Medical &
Health, Health Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Pali.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashpal Khileree.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bissa, AGC.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 06/12/2017 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 28.07.2017 (Annex.-5) passed by the Dy. Director (Nursing), Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan Jaipur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 ('the Rules') seeking voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 01.11.2017 has been rejected.
The petitioner entered the service of the respondents on 06.11.1978 and had completed 15 years of qualifying service in the year 1993 itself and was eligible to apply for voluntary retirement under provisions of Rule 50 of the Rules.
(2 of 4) [CW-11186/2017] The petitioner made an application (Annex.-4) seeking voluntary retirement. By the impugned order dated 28.07.2017 (Annex.-5), the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected indicating that by order dated 21.11.2006 issued by the Directorate a ban was placed till further orders on granting voluntary retirement and as such the application cannot be accepted.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Rule 50 of the Rules does not envisage power to the respondents to refuse the grant of voluntary retirement at their whims and even if a ban has been placed in the year 2006, the same cannot be a valid reason for refusing the voluntary retirement to the petitioner.
Further submissions have been made that the respondents were indulging in pick and chose while passing orders on applications of similar nature. With reference to the order dated 23.06.2017 (Annex.-6) passed by the Additional Director (Administration), Medical & Health Services, Jaipur, it was submitted that similarly situated Health Worker (Female) was granted voluntary retirement without indicating any distinguishing feature from the case of the petitioner and without even referring to the alleged ban imposed in the year 2006. Further submissions have been made that this Court has repeatedly laid down that denial of application for voluntary retirement in the circumstances was not justified.
(3 of 4) [CW-11186/2017] Reliance was placed on judgment in the case of Smt. Kamla v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCW No. 10320/2017, decided on 13.11.2017.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on account of scarcity/paucity of the technical/nursing staff, the respondents have refused voluntary retirement and, there is no illegality in the order impugned and, therefore, the writ 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.
So far as the plea raised by the petitioner regarding the respondents adopting a pick and choose policy with regard to grant of voluntary retirement with reference to the order Annex.-6 is concerned, the respondents have not filed any reply to the said submissions made, no distinguishing feature has been indicated so as to explain as to why while the employee as indicated in Annex.- 6 was granted voluntary retirement though there is no difference between the petitioner and the said person. The action of the respondents on that count alone cannot be sustained.
Further this Court while deciding the case of Smt. Kamla (supra) while relying on the judgment in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCW No.4526/2014, decided on 16.12.2014, allowed a similar writ petition.
In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in light or judgment in the case of Smt. Kamla and Dr. Kalpana Singh (supra). The impugned order dated (4 of 4) [CW-11186/2017] 28.07.2017 (Annex.-5) 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. PKS-170