"People Doctor Ratio In India Abysmally Low": Calcutta High Court Upholds Denial Of Voluntary Retirement To Doctor Citing Larger Public Interest
The Calcutta High Court recently upheld an order of the Additional Chief Secretary To State's Health Department which rejected the application of a doctor for voluntary retirement on the ground of larger public interest. While upholding the said order, the division bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Prasenjit Biswas observed: “The health sector being a most important...
The Calcutta High Court recently upheld an order of the Additional Chief Secretary To State's Health Department which rejected the application of a doctor for voluntary retirement on the ground of larger public interest.
While upholding the said order, the division bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Prasenjit Biswas observed:
“The health sector being a most important sector in the administration of the system for not only rendition of the services to the society but to the humanity as well. The health of the citizenry plays a very pivotal role in the development of the society and the country. The people doctor ratio in the country is abysmally low and there is a dearth and paucity of the Doctors at the Government Hospitals where the poorest of the poor got benefit of the treatment.”
The respondent-doctor had completed fifty years of age and rendered more than twenty years of his service in the year 2008. He filed an application for voluntary retirement by virtue of the provisions contained in Rule 75(aa) and 75(aaa) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-1 which was rejected by the State on the premise that such prayer for voluntary retirement cannot be acceded to on the larger public interest.
However, the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal by an order dated November 25, 2019 allowed application of the respondent-doctor for voluntary retirement stating that once the conditions enshrined in the enabling provision of Rule 75(aaa) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-1 (Service Rules) have been fulfilled there was no other option left to the Government to grant the prayer and allow the respondent a voluntary retirement.
The State approached the High Court challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal.
The court observed that the Tribunal has overlooked a subsequent amendment provision brought by way of an amendment with effect from February 7, 2014 by inserting Rule 75(aaaa) which excludes the applicability of the provisions contained in Rule 75(aa) and 75(aaa) of the Service Rules to have any manner of application in relation to the holder of the service in West Bengal Health Services, the West Bengal Medical Education Services, the West Bengal Public Health-cum-Administrative Services, the West Bengal Dental Service and the West Bengal Dental Education Services.
The court further noted:
“Note-3 appended to Rule 75(aaa) of the Service Rules postulates that the Government may decline to grant voluntary retirement on public interest and once such decision is taken unless it appears that the provision is so stringent that it cannot be brindled by any incorporation, the fullest effect to such provision is required to be given.”
Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and directed the respondent-doctor to resume his duty within fortnight.
Case Title: The State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Madhab Sarkar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 61
Coram: Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Prasenjit Biswas