Dr. Ashok Luckwani Son Of Shri Krishan Chandra v. State Of Rajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19883 / 2017 Dr. Ashok Luckwani Son of Shri Krishan Chandra, Aged About 54 Years, Resident of 88, Income Tax Colony-I, Jagatpura Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Department of Medical and Health, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Deputy Secretary, Department of Medical and Health (Group-II), Swasthya Bhawan, Behind Government Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Director, Medical and Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Behind Government Secretariat, Jaipur ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Priyanka Pareek on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kushal Singh on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment / Order Reserved on:06/12/2017: Pronounced on: 8th /12/2017: (1)Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved inthe present writ petition stands already concluded and decided byCo-ordinate Bench in the case of S.B. C.W. No. 4526/2014; Dr.Kalpana Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on16.12.2014 by principal seat at Jodhpur. The said judgment wasfollowed by another Co-ordinate Bench in S.B. C.W.No.2490/2016; Dr. Praveen Kumar Gehlot Vs. The State ofRajasthan & Ors. decided on 23.05.2016 and it has been held in both the cases that a candidate who seeks voluntary retirement interms of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 would be entitled to berelieved and only on the ground that there is paucity of Doctorswith the State Government, the concerned person cannot bedenied to be relieved in terms of Rule 50 provided he fulfills theminimum requisite qualification laid down therein. (2)In the present case, the petitioner was appointed on the postof Medical Officer on 21/03/1991. He submitted application on06/06/2012 seeking voluntary retirement which was deemed to berejected vide order dated 20/02/2013. Thereafter, he againsubmitted application for voluntary retirement on 14/08/2017seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 01/08/2018 which too came tobe rejected vide order dated 23/10/2017 on the ground of paucityof Medical Doctors in the State. In the meanwhile the petitionerstood promoted on the post of Principal Specialist w.e.f. 1.4.2016by DPC vide order dated 15.4.2016. (3)Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitionerhad sought voluntarily retirement and cannot be forced to workas his wife is suffering from cancer and needs his care andattendant. The petitioner seeks VRS with immediate effect nowand has filed an affidavit in this regard. Taking into considerationthe law as laid down by this Court as earlier as well as by theCoordinate Benches, the petitioner cannot be forced to performduties once he finds himself not in capacity to performGovernment work for personal reasons. The respondents have notseriously opposed the prayer and agree that similar cases havebeen decided. (4)This Court finds that the law has already been settled by theCo-ordinate Bench in case of Dr. Kalpana Singh (supra) and Dr.Praveen Kumar Gehlot (supra). (5)In view of above, the writ petition is allowed the order dated23.10.2017 is quashed and set aside. Keeping in view prayer inaffidavit the petitioner shall be treated to have retired voluntarilyw.e.f. 1[st] January, 2018 and his retiral benefits shall be accordinglyreleased within two months thereafter. (6) No costs. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J. Anu/