Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 31 December 2019 passed by the Divisional Controller, State Transport Office, Jalna, which denied the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement on medical grounds. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant Traffic Superintendent, Class-II-C with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). He was initially appointed as a Transport Controller on 25 May 1994 and promoted on 18 August 2017. After his promotion, he experienced health problems including uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension and occasional fits (neuropathy). The MSRTC had issued circulars dated 29 September 2017 and 5 April 2018 enabling medically unfit employees to seek voluntary retirement. The petitioner applied on 28 March 2019. The MSRTC referred him to a Medical Board, which declared him unfit for duty by a medical report signed on 14 and 15 October 2019. The Divisional Controller, Jalna, recommended his case on 17 October 2019. However, by the impugned letter dated 31 December 2019, the petitioner was informed that he was not eligible because he fell in the Officer (II-C) category and the circular did not apply to officers, only to workmen/employees. The petitioner argued that he had no intention to continue in service due to health and that denying voluntary retirement while also preventing him from reporting to duty from 1 January 2020 left him without salary or retirement benefits. The respondent MSRTC contended that voluntary retirement was not a matter of right, the health problems were not so severe as to prevent any duty, and that the medical unfitness did not mean the petitioner could not do light work. During the hearing, the court considered Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the earlier Section 47 of the 1995 Act regarding alternative employment, but the petitioner expressed inability to do any work, including light work. To test bona fides, the court had directed the petitioner on 18 November 2021 to file an affidavit stating that his family would not seek compassionate appointment. The petitioner filed an undertaking dated 24 November 2021 affirming that the voluntary retirement application was not to facilitate compassionate appointment and that his son/daughter/wife/legal representatives would not seek compassionate appointment. The court found no mala fide or ulterior motive. It held that compelling the petitioner to resign would deprive him of retiral benefits, and the MSRTC could not adopt such a harsh stand. The court noted the contradictory position: on one hand the petitioner was disallowed from reporting to duties from 1 January 2020, and on the other hand his voluntary retirement application was not entertained. Without laying down a precedent, the court quashed the impugned order. At the request of the petitioner, it deemed retirement effective from 1 November 2019, since the medical certificate was dated 15 October 2019. The court directed that retiral benefits and pensionary benefits be extended as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 31 December 2021. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Voluntary Retirement - Medically Unfit Employee - Not mentioned - The petitioner, an Assistant Traffic Superintendent Class-II-C with Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, was declared medically unfit by the Medical Board and his voluntary retirement application was recommended by the Divisional Controller, but the impugned order dated 31.12.2019 denied eligibility because the circular did not apply to officers. The court held that the employer cannot force an employee to continue in service and cannot prevent reporting for duty while simultaneously denying voluntary retirement, which would deprive the employee of retiral benefits. Held, the impugned order is quashed and the petitioner is deemed to have retired from 1.11.2019 with retiral benefits payable by 31.12.2021 (Paras 4-13). B) Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Alternative Employment - Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - The court considered alternative employment for the petitioner after he was declared unfit for duty. The petitioner submitted that he was unable to perform any other work including light work. The court did not compel acceptance of alternative employment and proceeded to allow voluntary retirement. Held, the right to alternative employment under disability law does not oblige an employee to accept it when the employee declares total inability to work (Para 8). C) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Bona Fides - Not mentioned - To test whether the voluntary retirement application was aimed at facilitating compassionate appointment, the court directed an affidavit that family members would not seek compassionate appointment with MSRTC. The petitioner filed an undertaking dated 24.11.2021. The court found no mala fide or ulterior motive and allowed the petition without laying down a precedent that dependents would not be entitled to compassionate appointment. Held, a bona fide voluntary retirement application cannot be rejected based on speculative compassionate appointment motive (Paras 9-12). D) Service Law - Deemed Retirement Date - Retiral Benefits - Not mentioned - At the petitioner's request, the court deemed retirement effective from 1.11.2019 because the medical certificate was dated 15.10.2019. The court directed that retiral and pensionary benefits be extended expeditiously, preferably by 31.12.2021. Held, retroactive deemed retirement from a date after medical unfitness is permissible where the denial order is quashed (Para 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the MSRTC could deny voluntary retirement to an employee declared medically unfit by the Medical Board solely because the circular did not apply to officers; whether denying duties and retirement simultaneously violated service law; whether alternative employment under disability law was mandatory; and whether the petitioner's application was bona fide
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause (C). The impugned order dated 31.12.2019 was quashed and set aside. The petitioner was deemed to have retired with effect from 1.11.2019. Retiral benefits and pensionary benefits as admissible in law were to be extended expeditiously, preferably on or before 31.12.2021. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Voluntary retirement cannot be denied to an employee declared medically unfit by the Medical Board when the application is bona fide
- employer cannot simultaneously prevent reporting to duty and refuse voluntary retirement
- retiral benefits must not be denied by compelling resignation
- alternative employment under disability law is optional
- compassionate appointment concerns can be addressed by undertaking
- deemed retirement can be made effective from a date after medical unfitness
