*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY + Writ Petition No.19336 of 2011 % 19-09-2011 # Smt. B. Lakshmi Sampoornam ..petitioner And $ Bharat Dynamics Limited, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad ..Respondent !Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G. Vidyasagar ^Counsel for respondent . : learned Standing Counsel < Gist: > Head Note: Citations: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19336 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of the Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL), the respondent herein, in the year 1984, and she earned promotions, from time to time. As of now, she is working as Senior Officer Superintendent, in the Pay and Accounts Department. On 09-05-2009, she addressed a letter to the Senior Manager of the department, stating that she is falling sick frequently, on account of various ailments, and that she has decided to seek voluntary retirement on medical grounds. She sought permission to take VRS. The Senior Manager, in turn referred the case of the petitioner to Medical Board (for short ‘the Board’), through proceedings dated 02- 07-2009. The petitioner appeared before the Board on 30-06-2009. Stating that the Board found her unfit to continue the service, the petitioner made representation dated 04-12-2009 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent, to permit her to retire on VRS, on medical grounds. Through letter dated 12-05-2011,the Senior Manager informed the petitioner that the competent authority has not acceded to the request of the petitioner and she was required to report to duty immediately. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said communication. Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a scheme in the respondent-organization for termination of an employee on medical grounds, and once the petitioner was found unfit, to continue in the service, on medical grounds, there is no basis for them in not acceding to the request of the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the very request of the petitioner was unclear and untenable. He contends that the petitioner wanted to seek “voluntary retirement on medical grounds”, and that, firstly there is no scheme of voluntary retirement in vogue, and that it is the prerogative of an employer to retire an employee on medical grounds, and not the other way. The petitioner submitted a representation/application to the Senior Manger of the respondent, on 09-05-2009. Her request is as under: “…As such I have decided to dispense with my employment under voluntary retirement scheme on Medical grounds. (copies of Medical reports are enclosed for ready reference.) I request your kind self to permit me to take VRS under Voluntary retirement on Medical grounds as per company rules. Your act of kindness will help me in maintaining my health.” There is any amount of uncertainty and lack of clarity in this. It is not for an employee to dispense with his/her services, and it is for the employer to do that. Secondly, the petitioner did not refer to any voluntary retirement scheme, that is in vogue, at the relevant point of time. Thirdly, VRS, on the one hand, and retirement, on medical grounds, on the other hand, cannot go together. The first one is a facility, which an employee can avail, if the scheme is in vogue, and the second, on the other hand, is the prerogative of the employer to dispense with the services of an employee, if he/she is found medically unfit. The occasion for the Senior Manager to refer the case of the petitioner to the Board would have arisen, if only he felt on his own accord, that the functioning of the petitioner in duty is being hampered, on account of the sickness or ailments. The petitioner, no doubt, appeared before the Board, on being referred by the Senior Manager. The respondent, however, take, the stand, that the whole exercise was untenable, and the petitioner cannot compel them to retire her on medical grounds. Reliance is placed upon Clause 59 of the Service Regulations. This Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot compel the respondent to retire her on medical grounds. It is a different matter, if the respondent themselves feel the necessity of subjecting the petitioner to medical examination, and taking further steps. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that a) The application submitted by the petitioner on 09-05-2009 shall not be treated as basis for requiring the respondent to terminate her services on medical grounds, under clause 59 of the Regulations; and b) it shall be open to the respondent to assess the ability and fitness of the petitioner to discharge the functions, and to take necessary steps in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.19-09-2011. Note: LR copy to be marked. (B/O) KO