In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has directed the reconsideration of an employeeโs application for voluntary retirement on the grounds of severe depression and anxiety neurosis. The court emphasized that compelling the employee to continue working under such conditions would violate her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the right to life and personal liberty.
Case Background
The case, WRIT – A No. 9427 of 2023, involved a petitioner employed at Malkhan Singh District Hospital, Aligarh, who sought voluntary retirement due to severe physical and mental health issues. Despite fulfilling all necessary conditions for voluntary retirement under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, her request was denied by the Director (Administration), Medical and Health Services, U.P., Lucknow, citing a scarcity of employees in the Group-C clerical cadre.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Right to Voluntary Retirement: The petitioner argued that her severe health issues justified her request for voluntary retirement.
2. Employer’s Discretion: The employer contended that they had the discretion to deny voluntary retirement based on staffing needs.
3. Fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty: The court had to determine whether denying the petitioner’s request violated her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Court’s Decision
Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan presided over the case, with Niraj Kumar Srivastava and Neelima Jaiswal representing the petitioner, and Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathaur serving as the Standing Counsel for the State. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the denial of her request was arbitrary and lacked proper application of mind.
Key Observations by the Court
– On the Petitioner’s Health Condition: “If the petitioner is compelled to discharge her duties, she may suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money… her life may be endangered, in that way, her Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would be violated.”
– On Employer’s Discretion: “The reason so indicated by the employer is not proper… the reason so indicated in the impugned order suffers from perversity, arbitrariness and given without proper application of mind.”
– On Fundamental Rights: “Every citizen of the country is having Fundamental Right to life and personal liberty and that right to life may not be violated without having any cogent and proper reason.”
Order and Directions
The court quashed the impugned order dated August 23, 2023, and directed the Director (Administration), Medical and Health Services, U.P., Lucknow, to reconsider the petitioner’s request in light of her medical condition and the court’s observations. The court mandated that a fresh order be passed within four weeks, and all post-retirement dues be disbursed to the petitioner promptly.
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Number: WRIT – A No. 9427 of 2023
– Bench: Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan
– Petitioner: Employee at Malkhan Singh District Hospital, Aligarh
– Respondent: State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Medical and Health Services, U.P., Lucknow, and others
– Lawyers: Niraj Kumar Srivastava and Neelima Jaiswal for the petitioner; Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathaur for the State
