The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.25704 of 2024 Dr.Sailesh Kumar Dhal ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Krishna Chandra Sahu -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – U.C.Jena, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 19.02.2025 Order No. 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to allow this writ petition quashing the impugned orders of rejection dtd. 22.12.2023 under Annexure-4 by further directing the govt. for acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement of the petitioner made by him on 25.09.2023 under Annexure-2 being duly recommended / forwarded by the Opp. party no.3 as per Annexure-3 keeping in view of Rule-42 of O.C.S (Pension) Rules 1992 so also keeping in view of the order of this Hon’ble Court under Annexure-5 & 7 being implemented Page 1 of 6. under Annexure-6 & 8 within a stipulated period of time by further granting all consequential post retirement benefits in favour of the petitioner within a time bound period for the interest of justice. And may further be pleased to pass any other order(s) as deems fit & proper for the bonafide interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that in similar matter, there are orders dealing with the identical issues. Accordingly, copies of those matters have brought on record. Further, by referring to such orders passed by this Court in identical matters, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention to this Court that the case of the petitioner is similar to the facts involved in other cases which have been adjudicated by this Court in the case of Dr. Jayashree Mohanty vrs. State of Odisha and another in WPC(OAC) No.1663 of 2018 decided on 15.07.2022 as well as in the case of Jheseketan Mohanty vrs. State of Odisha and others in WPC(OAC) No.2187 of 2018 decided on 09.12.2021. In the aforesaid two cases, this Court while dealing with the Rule 42(2) of OCS(Pension) Rules and Rule 71 of Odisha Service Code has categorically held that one application for voluntary retirement has submitted by the petitioner and no objection having been three months advanced notice to the competent authority and in the event no objection is received within the aforesaid period of three months, it would be deemed that the application for VR has been accepted by the competent authority. Further, it has also been held in the said orders that the only requirement is qualifying period of service i.e. further seeking retire from service of VR must have rendered 20 years of service. Relying upon such years, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case petitioner has served for a period of more than 20 Page 2 of 6. years of service and submitted advance notice on 25.09.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any reply or objection, intimation from his employer. Finally, the Joint Secretary to Government in its Letter No.22.12.2023 under Annexure-4 informing the petitioner that his representation has been rejected along with nine others on the ground that there is dearth of doctors in the State. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that while rejecting the application for VR submitted by the petitioner vide letter dated 22.12.2023 under Annexure-4 the Joint Secretary to Government has taken ground that due to dearth of doctors in the State, the prayer for VR is not acceptable, which is not a valid ground in view of Rule 42 of the OCS (Pension) Rule, 1992. Therefore, he further submitted that the application for VRS should not have been rejected on such a flimsy ground and moreover, the same is one ground which is mentioned in Rule 42 of the OCS(Pension) Rule, 1992 to the application of the petitioner. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the decision has been taken within the time stipulated under Rule 42 of the OCS (Pension) Rule, 1992. Therefore, the deemed provision, which is available under Rule 42 of the Rule of the present case. He further contended that the authority has given sound reason by rejecting the application. It is also contended by learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State that in fact, there is dearth of good doctors in the State of Odisha particularly, in view of the fact that the Government of Odisha is planning to open Medical Colleges in the State. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel supported the decision of the Government under Annexure-4 vide letter dated 22.12.2023 and accordingly urged for Page 3 of 6. rejection of the application of the petitioner as there is devoid of merit. 6. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, upon careful consideration of the relevant provisions and the materials placed before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the ground taken by the Government in rejecting the VR application is not a valid ground as has been given under Rule 42 under the OCS(Pension) Rules. Further, it appears that the ground to general and the same cannot compliance to one ground of that the same force. The prayer of the petitioner of the provision of Rule 42 under the OCS(Pension) Rules for VR by taking into consideration the background facts, the difficulties and the requirement of the customs two seeks VR. Therefore, by rejecting ten applications by a common order, the authorities should have done well considered the each of the case separately by taking into consideration, the grounds taken by them on the difficulties faced by the petitioner. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is ailing & is suffering from Type-II Diabetes, Mallitvs, Hypertension, Spondylitis, PIVD and PSVT disease. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties should have considered the illness of the Petitioner at the time of consideration of VRS application under Annexure-4 and by a common order without referring to the case of the Petitioner specifically rejected the application of the Petitioner by passing a general order. In such view of the matter, the order under Annexure-4 so far it relates to the Petitioner is liable to be quashed. He further contended that in a similar matter this Court disposed of the Writ Page 4 of 6. Petition vide order under Annexure-5 & 7 which has been implemented vide order under Annexure-6 & 8. 8. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the letters dated 22.12.2023 under Annexure-4 is unsustainable and the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Government to consider the matter afresh by keeping in view the decision referred to hereinabove, which was rendered by this court by taking into consideration similar cases the Opposite Party No.1 shall take a decision in the matter within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Further, it is made clear that this Court has rejected under Annexure- 4 order which relates to the present case only. Any decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. 9. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Dr.Umesh Panigrahi vs. State of Odisha & Ors. in W.P.(C) No.8030 of 2024 disposed of on 08.04.2024. He further contended that in the case of Dr.Umesh Panigrahi (supra), this Court had categorically held that the ground of public interest cannot be a valid ground to reject the VRS application under Rule-42 of the OCS (Pension) Rules. Accordingly, the writ application of Dr.Umesh Panigrahi was allowed. The order passed in Dr.Umesh Panigrahi (supra) has already been implemented in the meantime vide order dated 10.05.2024 under Annexure-8 to the writ application. 10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Page 5 of 6. 11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Feb-2025 12:21:40