West Bengal Medical Education Service Members Cannot Claim Voluntary Retirement: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that members of the West Bengal Medical Education Services are not entitled to seek voluntary retirement under the West Bengal Service Rules (WBSR), as Rule 75(aaaa) expressly bars such a facility.
A Division Bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas dismissed a writ petition filed by Dr. Sanjoy Bhattacharya, who had challenged the rejection of his request for voluntary retirement and the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal's decision upholding the rejection.
The petitioner had claimed that he submitted an application for voluntary retirement on February 24, 2020, but the authorities rejected it on December 16, 2020, directing him to continue in service by relying upon Rule 75(aaaa) of the WBSR.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that his application was actually made under Rule 59 of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 (DCRB Rules). He contended that since no decision had been communicated to him within three months of his application, his voluntary retirement should be deemed to have been accepted.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal and Tek Chand v. Dile Ram, which deal with deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement applications upon expiry of the prescribed period.
The State, however, argued that the petitioner's entitlement had to be examined under the WBSR, which specifically excludes members of the West Bengal Medical Education Services from the facility of voluntary retirement.
The High Court noted that Rule 75(aaaa), inserted into the WBSR by an amendment dated February 7, 2014, provides that the provisions governing voluntary retirement under Rule 75(aa) and 75(aaa) are not admissible to holders of the West Bengal Health Services, West Bengal Medical Education Services, West Bengal Public Health-cum-Administrative Services, West Bengal Dental Services and West Bengal Dental Education Services.
The provision, however, permits the Government to relax the restriction where a person deserves sympathetic consideration on genuine grounds for premature retirement.
"From a plain reading of the provision it is more than obvious that the facility of voluntary retirement is not available to the members of West Bengal Medical Services," the Bench observed.
The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that Rule 59 of the DCRB Rules independently conferred a right to voluntary retirement.
Rule 59 provides that members of certain specified services, including the West Bengal Health Service, may be granted retiring pension after completing at least 25 years of qualifying service, subject to their resignation being accepted.
The Bench held that the provision was not a substantive provision creating a facility of voluntary retirement.
"A plain reading of the provision leaves no ambiguity that this is not a substantive provision for a voluntary retirement facility, rather it provides a circumstance under which a retiring pension may be granted," the Court said.
The Court noted that Rule 75(aaa) of the WBSR is the provision governing voluntary retirement in State Government service, while Rule 75(aaaa) specifically excludes members of the Medical Education Services from that facility.
Since there was no dispute that the petitioner was a member of the West Bengal Medical Education Service, the Bench found no infirmity in the decision of the Director of Medical Education rejecting his request for voluntary retirement.
The Court also rejected the reliance placed on the Supreme Court judgments in S.K. Singhal and Tek Chand.
It held that those decisions could apply only where the employee was otherwise entitled to avail of voluntary retirement under the applicable rules.
"In the present case since the petitioner, a member of West Bengal Medical Education Services is not entitled to avail of voluntary retirement under the WBSR, the question of automatic acceptance after lapse of any period, does not arise," the Bench held.
The Court observed that the foundational facts necessary for applying the principles laid down in the two Supreme Court judgments were absent in the present case.
The petitioner's further contention that his request had been rejected by an incompetent authority and that he was being victimised for having raised allegations of corruption in the department was also rejected.
The Bench ultimately found no infirmity in the Tribunal's April 22, 2024 order dismissing the petitioner's original application.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case: Dr. Sanjoy Bhattacharya Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No: W.P.S.T. 125 of 2024