Summary
The Supreme Court restored the refusal of a government doctor’s voluntary retirement. Note 3 to Rule 75 applied to voluntary retirement as well as retirement in public interest, allowing public-service needs to be considered. The later Division Bench had also exceeded review jurisdiction by substituting a different interpretation without an apparent error.
Issues
- Whether Note 3 to Rule 75 applied to voluntary retirement under sub-rule (aaa).
- Whether the High Court could reverse its earlier decision through review merely on a different interpretation.
Provisions considered
- Rule 75(aa), Rule 75(aaa) and Note 3, West Bengal Service Rules, 1971Note 3 was not confined to compulsory retirement in public interest; it also applied to voluntary retirement, permitting consideration of the public need for medical services. (¶¶ 14, 17–22)
Held
- A different interpretation of the same rule did not constitute an error apparent. The reviewing Bench acted as an appellate court, despite the absence of a qualifying review ground. (¶ 11–12)
- The Court also found procedural error in recalling the prior judgment and disposing of the main case in the same order without a separate fresh hearing of the main matter. (¶ 13)
- Note 3 applied to both sub-rules (aa) and (aaa). The original Division Bench correctly upheld the Government’s public-interest refusal of the doctor’s request. (¶ 21–22)
- The doctor had to return within one month. The period not worked carried neither wages nor credit towards service for retiral benefits. (¶ 23)
Result
Appeal allowed; review judgment set aside and original Division Bench judgment restored. Respondent to report within one month, without wages or retiral-service credit for the period not served. No costs.