Madras High Court
Dr.V.Balaraman vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2025
WP.No.34131 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 02.07.2025
PRONOUNCED ON :12.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP.No.34131 of 2024
and
WMP.Nos.36950 & 36951 of 2024
Dr.V.Balaraman
S/o.M.Velayudham
Professor of Nephrology,
Institute of Child Health,
Madras Medical College,
Chennai.
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Health and Family Welfare (A2) Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai.
2. Directorate of Medical Education and Research,
Medical Department, DMS Campus,
Teynampet, Chennai-6.
3. The Dean,
Institute of Child Health
Madras Medical College
Chennai.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the 1st respondent in her proceedings in Letter (D) No.952
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:55 pm )
WP.No.34131 of 2024
dated 04.09.2024, which was communicated by the 2nd and 3rd
respondents and to quash the same as being illegal and unsustainable
in law and for a consequential direction to the respondents to relieve
the petitioner on Voluntary Retirement from Government Service.
For Petitioner : Ms.N.Kavitha Rameshwar
For Respondents : Ms.M.Sneha
Special Counsel
*****
ORDER
The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the present
writ petition is that, the petitioner has given an application for voluntary
retirement vide his representation dated 01.06.2024. The reason for
voluntary retirement is that his two daughters are wheelchair
dependent spastic daughters, whose daily life is dependant on the
petitioner. However, the request for voluntary retirement service was
rejected by the first respondent vide order dated 04.09.2024 on the
ground that the Department which the petitioner is heading qua
Nephrology is a Scarce Category, and that his continuance in
Government Service is absolutely essential in the public interest.
Aggrieved with the said order, the present writ petition was filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:55 pm )
2. Heard Ms.N.Kavitha Rameshwar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms.M.Sneha, learned Special Counsel appearing for the
respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
initially the petitioner was appointed in 1997 as an Assistant Surgeon,
and later promoted on 02.02.2021 as Professor of Nephrology in
Madras Medical College. The learned counsel would further submit that
the petitioner had completed 27 years of service and that he has got
two special wheelchair dependent spastic daughters with >80%
disability of ages 23 and 15 whose medical care and activity of daily life
is dependent hardly with the personal attention of this petitioner. It is
their further submission that since the petitioner's daughters are
growing older, it become impossible for the petitioner's spouse to take
care of them alone and even his wife has also been recently diagnosed
with osteoarthritis. It is in this background, the learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that unless the petitioner takes care of his
daughters, it becomes detrimental to their wellbeing. However, the
respondent, without considering the essential requirement of
petitioner, has erroneously rejected by citing G.O.Ms.No.408 dated
15.12.2009 as if the specialization in Nephrology is a scarce category.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:55 pm )
The learned counsel would further submit that though initially it was a
scarce category, now there is a increase in take of students for the
specialization, which the respondent did not consider. She would also
contend that now there are more sanctioned post in Nephrology
Department, therefore the specialization in Nephrology could be no
longer a scarce category. Hence, would contend that the impugned
order is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled for a
Voluntary Retirement of Service. In support of her contention, the
learned counsel relied relied upon the judgments of this Court in
WP.No.2336, 2337 & 10226 of 2011 [Dr.N.Jayanthi M.S., D.O Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu], WP (MD).No.10198 of 2015 [Elizabeth
Rajaram Vs. The Principal Secretary], besides the judgment of the
learned Single Judge in WP.No.7038 of 2013 [Dr.Muthusamy Vs.
Secretary to Government].
4.Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the
learned Special Counsel on the specific ground that the petitioner has
given voluntary retirement application only to have a greener pastures
of more income, which is evident that the petitioner became a part of
“Gleneagles hospital” and has been taking appointment, even while he
is in the rolls of the respondent. The learned Special Counsel would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:55 pm )
further submit that the petitioner having applied medical leave and
subsequently, a leave on loss of pay, in spite of his absolute necessity
at Institute of Child Health and Hospital of Children attached to Madras
Medical College, Chennai, he failed to rejoin, but treat the patients in
the private hospitals. Therefore, contended that the reason assigned
by the petitioner for voluntary retirement is far from truth. It is the
further submission of the petitioner that the petitioner's specialization
viz., Nephrology is a scarce category and that while the petitioner was
given seat in the DM Nephrology, he had executed a bond to remain in
service still his superannuation. Thus, the question of relieving him on
voluntary retirement in the midway is against the public interest.
Therefore, would contend that the order of the Authority need not be
interfered with under the judicial review, as the same is in consonance
with the Government Order. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side
submissions.
6. The factual issue involved in the present lis is not in serious
dispute. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has functioned in the
Nephrology Department at the Institute of Child Health and Hospital for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:55 pm )
Children attached to Madras Medical College. It is equally not in dispute
that the petitioner joined in DM Nephrology degree according to his
merit under the inservice quota by executing a bond. According to the
bond, he ha to remain in service till his superannuation. It is equally
not in dispute that at the time of allotting seat for DM Nephrology to the
petitioner, the entire State has got only one seat for the said
specialization.
7.It is also not in serious dispute that the petitioner has got two
special wheelchair dependent spastic daughters, having disability of
more than 80% of ages 23 & 15. While looking at the application for
the voluntary retirement, the main ground urged by the petitioner is, to
take care of his two dependent daughters. In his representation dated
01.06.2024, he has stated that as their daughters growing older, it
become impossible for his spouse to take care of them alone. Apart
from this ground, there are no other ground for the petitioner to seek
voluntary retirement.
8.But, the first respondent vide impugned order dated
04.09.2024 has referred about Rule 56(3)(f) of Fundamental Rules and
has mentioned that the appointing authority is empowered to withhold
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:55 pm )
permission of Voluntary Retirement, if the post held by the employee
comes within the Scarce Category. The learned Special Counsel relied
upon the G.O.Ms.408 dated 15.12.2009. According to the above G.O.,
Nephrology is admittedly a scarce category.
9.Even according to the petitioner, when the petitioner joined in
the DM Nephrology Course, for the whole State there was only one
seat. But, it was contented that by efflux of time, the intake for DM
Nephrology has been increased manifold and the Government has also
created various posts in the Nephrology Department.
10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited
the attention of this Court about the orders passed by the learned
Single Judge in Dr.Muthusamy's case [cited supra], wherein the
learned Single Judge in spite of the fact that the general medicines
refers to as scarce category, has raised a doubt in respect of such
classification and ultimately permitted for voluntary retirement of the
Doctor who had specialized in the General Medicine. But, the facts of
the above reported case is not applicable to the case in hand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:55 pm )
11.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the
judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr.N.Jayanthi's
case [cited supra]. This is a case where the Doctor who applies for the
voluntary retirement has got serious medical ailments, and her
continuance would jeopardise the quality of treatment and wellbeing of
the patients besides her medical condition. Therefore, when the
individual seeks for voluntary retirement on the ground of his serious
medical ailments, this Court has quashed the rejection order and
ultimately, permitted them to go in voluntary retirement.
12.Similarly, in another writ petition in Elizabeth Rajaram's
case [cited supra], the learned Single Judge has held that when the
Government orders are silent as to what will happen to the rare
specialist, who decide to opt for voluntary retirement, then the Court
has to come to rescue by giving a different interpretation in one way or
the other.
13. From the above cited judgments, it is amply clear that
notwithstanding the Rule about the scarce category Doctors, even in
the absence of any indication in the G.O, the Court can go into the
validity of the classification of scarce category. Even according to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:55 pm )
Elizabeth Rajaram's case [cited supra], the prayer for voluntary
retirement has been considered on the ground of the Doctor's medical
condition and not on the ground of the family circumstances. But, in
the case in hand, the ground urged by the petitioner is, fully based
upon his family circumstances.
14.At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the argument put forth
by the learned Special Counsel. The petitioner, after applying for
voluntary retirement on 01.06.2024, has applied for unearned leave
from 18.09.2024 to 12.10.2024, and subsequently has extended leave
on various grounds and ultimately vide his application dated
12.06.2025, he gave an application for extending the leave on loss of
pay upto 15.12.2025. As a matter of fact, the respondent has not
denied the medical condition of the petitioners daughters. But, their
objection is on two fold. One is that his continuance is absolute
necessity in the public interest. The second is, that application for
voluntary retirement is not to take care of his daughters, but to have
greener pastures of more income.
15.If a Doctor, who applies for voluntary retirement is suffering
form serious medical conditions and in spite of the same if we compel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:55 pm )
him to continue in the post, the same would not only prejudice to the
health of the Doctor also will prejudice to the health of the patients who
would take treatment from him. At the same time, we must also keep
in mind that the Doctors are also normal human beings like all of us
and will have emotions, shortcomings and difficulties in their families.
But in the case in had, in spite of all shortcomings and issues, the
petitioner succeeded in getting seat in DM Nephrology under the in-
service category by entering a contract that he would remain in service
till his superannuation. Therefore, after having entered into a
contractual obligation with the Government, that too after knowing his
family difficulty, at the fag end of having 5 more year of service cannot
retract from his contractual obligation.
16. It is pertinent to mention here that though the petitioner had
categorically stated that he needs to take care of his daughters,
contrarily he render his service to the needy patients without wasting
his efficiency in the field of Nephrology. He rightfully take care the
interest of the patients by taking appointment under the banner
“Gleneagles hospital”. The learned Special Counsel invited the
attention of this Court that, even during the leave on loss of pay on the
pretext taken to take care of his daughters, he found time to attend
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:55 pm )
patients through “Gleneagles hospital”, which would palpably
demonstrate the capability of the petitioner to find time for his medical
service, in spite of his compelling duty to take care of his dependant
daughters. The above conduct would demonstrate that the petitioner
can continue his public service in Government hospital in spite of his
family circumstances.
17. The other way of looking at the issue is that the person who
got trained at the expense of the Government, has to give back the
fruits of the training to the needy poor patients and society at large.
While balancing the two, namely the continuance of the petitioner in
Government service for the public duty, and the medical condition of his
daughters who are aged about 23 and 15, this Court is of the view that,
when the petitioner is able to take care of his daughters, even after
attending the patients through “Gleneagles Hospital”, there will be no
difficulty for him to attend his daughters, while continuing the public
service viz., in Government Hospitals. Therefore, this Court does not
find any infirmity in the impugned order.
18. At this juncture, the learned counsel relied upon the
G.O.(Rt).No.307 dated 22.04.2025, wherein the Government has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:55 pm )
decided to constitute a Committee of Experts to examine and revise the
list of rare specialities specified in G.O.(Ms).No.408 dated 15.12.2009.
In view of the such developments, this Court though would like to
dismiss the writ petition, is giving liberty to the petitioner to give a
fresh representation after the submission of the report by the
Committee.
19.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with the above
direction. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected WMPs are also closed.
12.09.2025
kmi
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order Order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1. State of Tamil Nadu
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Health and Family Welfare (A2) Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai.
2. Directorate of Medical Education and Research,
Medical Department, DMS Campus,
Teynampet, Chennai-6.
3. The Dean,
Institute of Child Health
Madras Medical College
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:55 pm )
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kmi
Pre-Delivery Order in
12.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:55 pm )
