Latest News
Back
Right To Life Prevails Over Right To Retire
The Supreme Court on August 21. 2018 has held that the right to retire voluntarily is not superior than right to life. The Court highlighted the fact that when the services of a doctor is required, the retirement can be denied as under the rules in state of Uttar Pradesh and thus the authority may not accept the prayer for retirement.
Background of the Case
- Achal Singh and several other members of Provincial Medical Services filed an application, seeking voluntary retirement. The High Courts allowed the petitions and treated the doctors as retired.
- The state contended in the Supreme Court that the state government has not accepted the applications for voluntary retirement since there is scarcity of doctors. The doctors further referred to the case, Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam and contended that Rule 56 of Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules provides right to retire and the acceptance of authority is only required when any kind of disciplinary enquiry is pending. The doctors also alleged that once a notice of three months is given by the employee, the doctor is deemed to retire and thus rejection of notice is invalid.
- The Bench referred to the Rule 56 and observed that the explanation makes it clear that the decision of appointing authority shall be taken if it appears to be in public interest. Further, it pointed out that the Rule applies to two conditions- when the employee seeks retirement or when the Government retires an employee. The Court differentiated this case and Dinesh Chandra’s case and stated that the rules of Assam cover only the situation when then employee is retired in public interest.
Therefore, in view of the remarks made by Justice Mishra the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of High Court held that the right to retire is subject to the interest of general public and the right is to be exercised only as per the rules. It is true that such conditions of service cannot be said to illegal and against the Constitution. The appointing authority thus has a right to reject the retirement in case the services of a doctors is required, because if all the doctors are permitted to retire, there would be chaos and it would be against public interest.
