Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Luis Fernandes, was appointed as a Driver with Respondent No. 1, Goa State Schedule Castes and Other Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation Limited, on 16.10.2000 and his services were confirmed on 03.08.2005. On 31.12.2020, he suffered a paralytic stroke and was advised rest for two and a half months. He resumed duties on 01.03.2021 and requested exemption from long-distance driving due to his physical condition. On 21.06.2021, the respondent referred him to the Medical Board, which on 23.08.2021 certified that he was not fit to work as a Driver but could be allocated some other less skillful job like a clerical job. On 12.12.2022, the petitioner received a show cause notice asking why he should not be made to retire on medical grounds. He filed a reply on 09.01.2023 stating that he had fully recovered and requesting withdrawal of the notice. However, on the same day, the Managing Director passed an order relieving him from service w.e.f. 11.01.2023. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court considered whether the order of compulsory retirement was sustainable when the Medical Board had recommended alternative employment. The court noted that the respondent did not consider the Medical Board's recommendation and did not provide any opportunity to the petitioner to be heard on the question of alternative employment. The court held that the impugned order was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The court quashed the order dated 09.01.2023 and directed the respondent to consider the petitioner for alternative employment in accordance with the Medical Board's recommendation within four weeks. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compulsory Retirement on Medical Grounds - Alternative Employment - Medical Board Recommendation - The petitioner, a driver, suffered a paralytic stroke and was declared unfit for driving by the Medical Board, which suggested allocation of a less skillful job. The employer compulsorily retired him without considering alternative employment. The High Court held that the employer must consider alternative suitable post before resorting to compulsory retirement, and the impugned order was quashed. (Paras 1-14) B) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Article 226 of Constitution of India - The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner for alternative employment in accordance with the Medical Board's recommendation, within four weeks. (Paras 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner on medical grounds without considering alternative employment as recommended by the Medical Board is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 09.01.2023 is quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the petitioner for alternative employment in accordance with the Medical Board's recommendation within four weeks. The petition is allowed.
Law Points
- Compulsory retirement on medical grounds
- alternative employment
- medical board recommendation
- natural justice
- writ of mandamus
- Article 226
