Vikash Gupta's Absence to Care for Critically Ill Mother Not Considered Willful; Court Directs Immediate Resumption of Duties
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has stayed an order treating Vikash Gupta's prolonged absence from work as a voluntary resignation. The court held that such absence, compelled by personal circumstances like the critical illness of a family member, cannot be equated with willful absenteeism.
The case, titled "Vikash Gupta v. District And Sessions Judge," was heard by Justice Sameer Jain at the Jaipur Bench. The petitioner, Vikash Gupta, was represented by Mr. Ashok Bansal, Mr. Ayush Bansal, and Mr. Pawan Sharma. The respondent, District and Sessions Judge, was represented by Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Deputy Government Counsel.
Vikash Gupta, who was employed under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, was absent from work for an extended period due to his mother's critical medical condition requiring extensive treatment, including 80 chemotherapy sessions. Despite filing multiple leave applications, some were only partially sanctioned without pay, while others were outright rejected without proper communication.
The court found that the impugned order dated June 12, 2023, violated Rule 86(4) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that unauthorized absence due to unavoidable personal circumstances should not be mistaken for a voluntary resignation, as established by the Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India.
Justice Jain acknowledged the compelling medical circumstances and ruled that the essentials for granting interim relief, such as a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable injury, were in favor of Vikash Gupta. Consequently, the court stayed the operation of the impugned order and directed Gupta to resume his duties immediately, with instructions for the respondents to facilitate his return without delay.
The court also clarified that issues regarding pending dues, back wages, and regularization of the leave period would be addressed after further proceedings. The case is scheduled for another hearing on April 2, 2026.
Bottom Line:
Service Law - Unauthorized absence due to compelling personal circumstances, such as medical emergencies, cannot be equated with willful absenteeism or voluntary resignation.
Statutory provision(s): Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 Rule 86(4)
Vikash Gupta v. District And Sessions Judge, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2857675
