Emphasising that Rule 75(aaaa) of the West Bengal Service Rules (WBSR) expressly excludes Medical Education Service personnel from the voluntary retirement scheme, rendering the deemed acceptance doctrine inapplicable, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition filed by a member of the West Bengal Medical Education Service challenging the rejection of his voluntary retirement application.
The Court held that where a service rule expressly excludes a particular category of government employees from the voluntary retirement scheme, such employees cannot claim any deemed acceptance of their voluntary retirement application upon lapse of time. The Court also pointed out that the right to voluntary retirement must exist as a substantive entitlement before the question of deemed acceptance can arise. Rule 59 of the DCRB Rules is merely a pension entitlement provision and does not create an independent right to voluntary retirement dehors the WBSR.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas noted that Rule 75(aaaa) of the West Bengal Service Rules (WBSR) was inserted into the WBSR by way of an amendment dated 7 February 2014, which expressly provided that the provisions contained in sub-rules (aa) and (aaa) of Rule 75 shall not be admissible to holders of the West Bengal Health Services, the West Bengal Medical Education Services, the West Bengal Public Health-cum-Administrative Services, the West Bengal Dental Services, and the West Bengal Dental Education Services. The Court observed that from a plain reading of this provision, it was more than obvious that the facility of voluntary retirement was not available to the members of West Bengal Medical Services.
On the question of whether Rule 59 of the DCRB could be considered independently of Rule 75(aaaa) of the WBSR, the Court held that Rule 59 merely enumerates the services under which persons would be entitled to retiring pension after completing qualifying service of not less than 25 years, subject to the condition of “their resignation being accepted.” The Court clarified that this was not a substantive provision for a voluntary retirement facility, but rather a provision that sets out the circumstances under which a retiring pension may be granted.
The Court further observed that Rule 75(aaa) of the WBSR is the substantive provision governing voluntary retirement under the State Government, and Rule 75(aaaa) was inserted by a notification dated 7 February 2014 to carve out specific exclusions. Since the petitioner was admittedly a member of the West Bengal Medical Education Service, and Rule 75(aaaa) itself barred an application for voluntary retirement by such members, the Court found no infirmity in the rejection of the petitioner’s claim.
Since the petitioner, being a member of the West Bengal Medical Education Services, was not entitled to avail of voluntary retirement under the WBSR, the question of automatic acceptance after the lapse of any period did not arise, added the Court.
Briefly, the petition was filed by Dr. Sanjoy Bhattacharya, a member of the West Bengal Medical Education Service, challenging the rejection of his application for voluntary retirement. The petitioner had submitted his application for voluntary retirement on 24 February 2020, which was subsequently rejected by the authorities through a communication dated 16 December 2020, directing him to continue discharging his duties. The rejection was founded on Rule 75(aaaa) of the West Bengal Service Rules (WBSR). Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner approached the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed by an order dated 22 April 2024.
