Order Of Reinstatement Inappropriate When Officers Remained Absent From Duties: SC Asks Authorities To Accept 16-yr-old VRS Application Of U.P. Doctors

The Division Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih asserted, “When the respondents found that their applications were not decided within a reasonable time, they could have adopted remedies in accordance with the law. But, in any event, the appellants ought to have decided the VRS applications within a reasonable time. But that was not done.”

Additional Advocate General K. Parameswar appeared for the Appellants while Advocate Abhishek Yadav represented the Respondents.

The facts of the case suggested that after making the applications for voluntary retirement , all of them remained absent for a considerably long time, along with several other medical officers. An order was passed in the year 2010 by the appellants in the exercise of powers under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. By the said order, the employment of the respondents, along with more than 400 other doctors, was terminated. The respondents preferred separate writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court which was allowed and an order of reinstatement was passed with all the consequential benefits in favor of the respondent. In the first case, the High Court held that the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution was not applicable and the appellants had failed to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a disciplinary enquiry.

In the second case, by the impugned judgment the High Court granted the same relief and directed the appellants to consider the application for VRS submitted by the respondent alongwith payment of cost of of Rs 1,00,000 to the respondent. Similar direction was issued to the appellants to consider the application for VRS made by the respondent in the third case.

It was the case of the Appellants that the respondents remained absent from the duties for more than 2 to 3 years and considering the fact that a few thousand doctors took recourse to absenteeism, from the order of termination passed in 2010 itself,it was impracticable to conduct a disciplinary enquiry against the defaulting doctors. He submitted that the grievance in the petitions filed before the High Court was essentially about the failure of the appellants to pass orders on the applications for VRS. Learned counsel pointed out that in such petitions, there was no occasion to pass an order of reinstatement considering the conduct of the respondents.

The Bench noticed that the applications made by the respondents for seeking VRS were kept pending by the appellants for no reason till the orders of termination were passed. No reasons were forthcoming in the counter filed by the appellants before the High Court for keeping the applications pending for such a long time.

“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”, the Bench said while also noticing that the respondents in the third case had already reached the age of superannuation.

As per the Bench, there was no justification for the High Court to pass an order of reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The most appropriate order would have been to direct the appellants to decide the applications for the grant of VRS.

“Now, it is too late in the day to do that, as a period of more than 16 years has elapsed from the dates on which applications for VRS were made. At the same time, the order of reinstatement would be inappropriate considering the conduct of the respondents of remaining absent from duties for a few years”, the Bench added.

It further held, “Therefore, the interests of justice would be served by setting aside the order of termination dated 3rd May 2010, and by directing the appellants to accept an application for VRS with effect from the date of the order of termination. There is nothing on the record to show that after 3rd May, 2010, there was no source of livelihood for the respondents who are doctors.”

Thus, allowing the applications made by the respondents for the grant of VRS, the Bench directed that the respondents would stand voluntarily retired with effect from May 3, 2010. It was also clarified by the Bench that the respondents will not be entitled to arrears of salary or any monetary benefits, including pension, if otherwise payable till the date of this order. However, it directed that pension, if any payable, shall be fixed by treating the date of voluntary retirement as May 3, 2010. The pension shall be payable from the date of this order.

Cause Title: State Of U.P. & Ors. v. Sandeep Agarwal (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1015)

Appearance:

Appellants: Additional Advocate General K. Parameswar, AOR Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Advocates Shaurya Krishna, Sarvesh Singh Bhagel,AOR Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocates Shaurya Krishna, Ashish Kumar Dwivedi

Respondents: Advocate Abhishek Yadav, AOR Rajesh Srivastava, Advocates Gaurav Verma, Saurabh Yadav, Pankaj Nath, AOR Krishnam Mishra, Advocates Param Kumar Mishra, Jagjeet Kumar Bhatt, Prashansika Thakur, AOR Abhijit Sengupta

Click here to read/download Judgment