KSRTC Conductor’s Bid to Backdate VRS for Extra ₹2 Lakh Fails at Karnataka HC, as Medical Board Certificate Came Only in October

In brief

The question

Whether KSRTC was required to accept the petitioner’s voluntary-retirement application with effect from 5 February 2020, despite his failure to submit the required medical certificate with the application.

The court held

The Court held that KSRTC had rightly accepted the petitioner’s voluntary retirement with effect from 8 October 2020 and rejected his request to modify that date.

It also directed

Finding no error or illegality warranting writ interference, it dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.

01Facts

The petitioner, a KSRTC conductor appointed in 1984, applied for voluntary retirement on 30 January 2020, seeking retirement with effect from 5 February 2020.

¶ 2

The applicable VRS provided different benefits for qualifying employees with disabilities and for employees with other illnesses.

¶ 7

The petitioner did not enclose the required Medical Board certificate with his application; following a direction from KSRTC, the Medical Board certified a 42% permanent disability on 8 October 2020.

¶ 10

KSRTC accepted his application from that date and paid him Rs.6,00,000, which he accepted.

¶ 11

He later sought to have retirement treated as effective from 5 February 2020, claiming an additional Rs.2,00,000.

¶ 8

KSRTC rejected his representation, and he challenged that rejection and the retirement order in a writ petition.

¶ 2, 6–12

02Issues

i.Whether KSRTC was required to accept the petitioner’s voluntary-retirement application with effect from 5 February 2020, despite his failure to submit the required medical certificate with the application.

¶ 10–12

ii.Whether the petitioner was entitled to the additional Rs.2,00,000 under the VRS on the basis of the earlier effective date he had requested.

¶ 8–12

03Law Applied

The Court applied KSRTC’s VRS dated 11/12 November 2019.

¶ 7–9

Under the scheme, an employee seeking retirement under the disability category had to produce the prescribed certificate establishing a disability exceeding 40%; the scheme provided a higher monetary benefit for that category than for employees retiring due to other illnesses.

¶ 7–9

The scheme also required medical certification by the competent Medical Board for the relevant category.

¶ 7–9

The Court referred to the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as the legislation under which qualifying disabilities were recognized.

¶ 8

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s application was based on ill health but did not include the Medical Board certificate required by the VRS.

¶ 10

KSRTC therefore directed him to obtain the certificate, which was issued only on 8 October 2020 and assessed his disability at 42%.

¶ 10

The Court held that KSRTC could accept the application from the date the required certificate was issued; the petitioner’s requested effective date could not precede satisfaction of that requirement.

¶ 10–12

As the remaining service was three years, KSRTC paid Rs.6,00,000 under the scheme, which the petitioner accepted.

¶ 11

In those circumstances, the Court found no basis to alter the effective date or award the claimed additional benefit.

¶ 10–12

05Holding

The Court held that KSRTC had rightly accepted the petitioner’s voluntary retirement with effect from 8 October 2020 and rejected his request to modify that date.

¶ 12

Finding no error or illegality warranting writ interference, it dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.

¶ 13

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF