Employee Cannot Remain Absent From Work Citing Pending VRS Application : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an employee cannot remain absent from service merely because its Voluntary Retirement Service (“VRS”) application is pending.

The bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice AG Masih was hearing the State of U.P.'s appeal against the Allahabad High Court's decision directing the reinstatement of the respondent employees who were terminated from the service because of their absenteeism from the service under the garb of pending VRS application.

The respondent employees, who were serving as doctors in the State of Uttar Pradesh, submitted VRS applications in 2006 and 2008 and subsequently remained absent from their duties after filing the applications.

In 2010, the Appellant terminated their employment along with over 400 other doctors over their long absenteeism, invoking clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, citing the impracticality of holding a disciplinary inquiry.

The respondents filed writ petitions, challenging the termination orders and seeking decisions on their VRS applications. The Allahabad High Court quashed the termination orders and ordered reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Following this, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court.

While alllowing the State's appeal, the judgment authored by Oka J. criticized the Appellant State of UP for keeping the VRS applications pending without justification. However, it noted that the respondents' absenteeism was unjustifiable.

“It is true that the conduct of the appellants in not deciding the applications for VRS cannot be supported at all. However, there was no reason for the respondents to take recourse to absenteeism. When the respondents found that their applications were not decided within a reasonable time, they could have adopted remedies in accordance with the law.”, the court said.

Given the respondent's prolonged absenteeism, the Court found the High Court's direction for their reinstatement as invalid.

Case Title: STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Versus SANDEEP AGARWAL

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1024

Click here to read/download the order