SC deprecates absenteeism pending VRS applications by doctors in Uttar Pradesh

New Delhi, Dec 20 (IANS) The Supreme Court has deprecated absenteeism by doctors in Uttar Pradesh after they made applications for voluntary retirement.

In May 2010, the Uttar Pradesh government passed an order terminating the employment of more than 400 doctors in the exercise of powers under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

Several writ petitions were filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the termination order. In its impugned decision, the Allahabad HC allowed petitions filed by doctors and passed an order of reinstatement with all the consequential benefits.

It had held that in the facts of the case, clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution was not applicable and the state government had failed to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a disciplinary enquiry.

In its appeal filed before the apex court, the Uttar Pradesh government contended that the respondent doctors remained absent from duties for more than 2 to 3 years.

It further argued that it was impracticable to conduct a disciplinary enquiry against the defaulting doctors, considering the fact that a few thousand doctors took recourse to absenteeism.

On the other hand, the doctors submitted that VRS applications remained pending with the state government for an unreasonably long time and the decision taken thereon was never conveyed to them.

Without deciding the applications seeking VRS, the state government initiated proceedings for termination from service, doctors added.

In its decision, the apex court bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih recorded that “no reasons” were forthcoming in the pleadings filed by the state government before the Allahabad High Court for keeping the applications pending for such a long time.

“It is true that the conduct of the appellants (state government) in not deciding the applications for VRS cannot be supported at all. However, there was no reason for the respondents (doctors) to take recourse to absenteeism. 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,” it said.

Questioning the judgment of the Allahabad HC, the apex court said there was “no justification to pass an order of reinstatement with all consequential benefits”.

The most appropriate order would have been to direct the state government to decide the applications for the grant of VRS, it added.

“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,” it further said.

In the interests of justice, the Supreme Court set aside the termination order and ordered the state government to accept the VRS application with effect from the date of the order of termination.

It further ordered that the doctors would be entitled to refixation of their pension on the basis of VRS with effect from May 3, 2010, if the pension is otherwise payable.

Allowing the VRS application, the apex court substituted the termination order with an order of voluntary retirement.

–IANS

pds/vd