The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Achal Singh

4. The respondent ­ Dr. Achal Singh was working as Joint Director in   Medical,   Health   and   Family   Welfare,   Lucknow   Region,   Lucknow filed an application dated 14.12.2016 for voluntary retirement  w.e.f. 31.3.2017.  Respondent – Dr. Ajay Kumar Tiwari was holding the post of   Joint   Director,   Medical,   Health   and   Family   Welfare,   Devi   Patan Mandal, Gonda, filed an application on 28.2.2017 seeking voluntary retirement  w.e.f.  31.5.2017.     Respondent   ­   Dr.   Rajendra   Kumar 3 Srivastava was working as Senior Consultant, filed an application for voluntary   retirement   on   15.4.2015   and   respondent   ­   Dr.   Rajiv Chaudhary   was   working   as   Senior   Consultant   at   District   Hospital, Raibareli, he sought voluntary retirement by filing an application on 3.12.2016.   The applications remained unattended and no order had been communicated, hence writ petitions were filed in the High Court. The   respondents­doctors   were   members   of   the   Provincial   Medical Services.

7. It   was   urged   by   Mr.   P.N.   Mishra,   learned   senior   counsel appeared on behalf of appellant that as per Explanation attached to Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh,   it   was   open   to   the   State   Government   to   take   a   decision whether   to   retire   an   employee   voluntarily   under   Rule   56(a)   duly considering   the   public   interest   or   decline   the   applications   for voluntary retirement.  It was also submitted that there is no automatic retirement on the expiry of the period of notice of three months served under Rule 56 as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh.  There has to be an express order granting permission to retire voluntarily, only thereafter an employee can be said to have retired voluntarily.   There is a scarcity of doctors in the Provincial Health Services in the State of Uttar   Pradesh,   thus,   the   State   Government   has   not   accepted   the applications   for   voluntary   retirement.     The   directions   issued   by   the High   Court   is   based   on   a   misinterpretation   of   Rule   56   of   the Fundamental Rules and is against the public interest.

1 In   the   Medical,   Health   and   Family   Welfare   Department   in   State   Medical   and   Health Services, the retirement age of Medical Officers in public interest has been approved as 62 years in place of 60 years with certain conditions vide Notification No.2324/SEC­2­5­2017­ 7(237)/2014 dated 31.5.2017.

41. It   was   also   contended   that   the   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   may amend rules, in our opinion there is no such necessity in view of the Explanation the State has already amended its rules so as to enable it to   pass   an   order   with   respect   to   retirement   whether   it   is   at   the instance of the Government or at the instance of the employee for both the public interest is germane.

43. In view of the above, we allow the civil appeals and hereby set aside  the impugned judgment and  order passed by the High  Court. The applications for intervention and to implead stand allowed.

New Delhi.