Orissa High Court
Dr. Snigdha Prava Mishra vs State Of Odisha And Ors. .... Opposite ... on 14 February, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:22:47
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.27920 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Dr. Snigdha Prava Mishra .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Saswat Das, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-20.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.02.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated
17.09.2024, issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health &
Family Welfare Department, rejecting her application for voluntary
retirement on the grounds of "larger public interest," citing a critical
shortage of faculty in Government Medical Colleges.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:22:47
(i) The petitioner, Dr. Snigdhaa Prava Mishra, is a Professor in Physiology
at MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur. On 28.04.2024, she
was transferred and appointed as the Superintendent at SRM Medical
College and Hospital, Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi, through a notification
issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department.
(ii) Instead of joining at her new place of posting, the petitioner submitted a
representation seeking cancellation of the transfer order, requesting
instead to be accommodated as a Professor in Physiology at SJMCH,
Puri.
(iii) On 06.03.2024, after her request for transfer cancellation was denied, she
applied for leave on health grounds. Following this, a recall notice
dated 20.06.2020 was issued, directing her to immediately join at the
SRM Medical College and Hospital, Bhawanipatna.
(iv) On 24.06.2024, instead of complying with recall order, the petitioner
submitted an application for Voluntary Retirement (VR) from
government service, citing her illness as the reason.
(v) The VR Committee, constituted to review such requests, convened on
27.08.2024, and after due deliberation, rejected her application on
17.09.2024, stating that her retirement could not be permitted due to an
acute shortage of doctors in government medical institutions across the
state.
(vi) The petitioner subsequently filed a Writ Petition challenging the
rejection of her VR application, arguing that the decision was arbitrary
and illegal.
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:22:47
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioner contends that as per Rule 42 of the Orissa Pension Rules,
voluntary retirement cannot be denied if the applicant has completed
the qualifying service period (more than 20 years) unless a disciplinary
proceeding is pending or a major penalty has been imposed. Since no
disciplinary proceeding or penalty exists against the petitioner, the
rejection is illegal and against the rules.
(ii) The authorities have granted voluntary retirement to other doctors
under similar circumstances. The rejection of her application is selective,
arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution (Right to
Equality).
(iii) The petitioner asserts that the rejection order is issued without due
consideration of her health condition and is merely a routine denial. The
authorities have failed to properly examine her medical conditions
before rejecting the request.
(iv) The rejection violates Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 16 (Equality
in Public Employment), Article 19 (Right to profession), and Article 21
(Right to life and Personal Liberty). By forcing her to continue
employment despite severe health issues, the government is
endangering her life and well-being.
(v) The petitioner's progressive vision loss and cardiac issues make it
impossible for her to continue working effectively. Denial of VRS on the
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:22:47
pretext of faculty shortage is unjustified when compared to her
individual right to health and well-being.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules provide that a government
servant may seek voluntary retirement (VR) after completing twenty
years of qualifying service by submitting a notice of at least 3 months to
the appointing authority. However, under Rule 42(2) of the Pension
Rules, the request for VR is subject to acceptance by the appointing
authority. In support of this argument, he placed a reliance on State of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Achal Singh1 , where the Court upheld the
rejection of VR applications by doctors due to public interest
considerations.
(ii) The VR Committee, after examining multiple applications for voluntary
retirement, found that there was a severe shortage of medical faculty in
government medical colleges and hospitals across Odisha. The National
Medical Commission (NMC) has prescribed Minimum Standard
Requirements (MSRs) regarding faculty strength, which the
government is struggling to meet. Further, the medical education in the
State is suffering due to shortage of Faculty Members.
(iii) The acute shortage of doctors has already led to situations where new
medical colleges, such as JK MCH, Jaipur, were permitted to operate
with only 50 MBBS seats instead of 100 due to a lack of adequate
(2018) 17 SCC 578.
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:22:47
teaching faculty. Given these constraints, retaining experienced senior
medical faculty is essential for the functioning of government medical
institutions. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's VR application
was not arbitrary but necessary administrative decision taken in the
larger public interest.
(iv) The sequence of events suggests that the petitioner's true reason for
seeking VR was not health concerns but dissatisfaction with her
transfer. Prior to her transfer, which she was serving at MKCG Medical
College and Hospital, Berhampur, she never complained of any illness
that prevented her from discharging her duties. It was only after
transfer order was issued that she:
- Initially requested cancellation of the transfer order, seeking to
remain at a location of her choice.
- Sought leave on health ground when the transfer was not
cancelled.
- Finally applied for VR after being recalled to duty at her new
posting.
This pattern strongly indicates that the petitioner's VR request was a
pretext to avoid complying with her transfer order, rather than being
based on genuine health concerns.
(v) Under the Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 36-51 of the
Constitution of India), the government has a constitutional duty to
improve public health infrastructure, ensure adequate medical services,
protect the right to health, which is a fundamental right under Article
21.
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:22:47
(vi) The Supreme Court in Union of India v. H.N. Kirtania2 has held that
transfer is an incidence of service, and a government employee has no
right to be posted at a particular place. Moreover, this Court in W.P. (C)
No. 9301 of 2022 (Dr. Sulata Mohapatra v. State of Odisha and Ors.) has
also ruled that government employees cannot insist on being retained at
a particular location.
(vii) It is further submitted that, as per Rule 48 of the Odisha Service Code,
the employees are liable to be transferred anywhere in the state in the
interest of public service. Accordingly, the posting of the petitioner was
justified.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
6. The petitioner, a professor at MKCG Hospital, Berhampur, was
transferred to SRM Medical College and Hospital, Bhawanipatna,
pursuant to a notification issued by the Health and Family Welfare
Department. Rather than complying with the transfer order, the
petitioner sought for cancellation of the said order, requesting instead to
be posted as a Professor in Physiology at SJMCH, Puri. Upon the denial
of her request on 06.03.2024, she applied for leave on health grounds. A
recall notice followed on 20.06.2020, directing her to join her new
posting without delay. Instead of adhering to this directive, the
petitioner, on 24.06.2024, submitted an application for Voluntary
Retirement (VR), citing her illness as the grounds for her request. The
(1989) 3 SCC 445.
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:22:47
VR Committee, convened on 27.08.2024, deliberated on the matter and,
on 17.09.2024, rejected her application. The Committee reasoned that
her retirement could not be permitted due to the acute shortage of
doctors in government medical institutions across the state.
7. The heart of the dispute, therefore, lies in the petitioner's refusal to
comply with her transfer and her subsequent attempt to retire
voluntarily, which was denied in light of the exigencies of public health
and the pressing need for medical professionals in state service.
8. The question before this Court is not a novel one. Courts have long been
called upon to weigh the right of a doctor to step away from service
against the broader demands of public health. Case after case has traced
the same familiar fault line, the individual's freedom to choose the
course of their own life on one side, and the state's interest in
preserving the machinery of public care on the other. The law does not
pretend that these interests will always align. It recognizes that there
will be friction, moments when duty pulls in one direction and
necessity in another. The task of this Court, then, is not to deny this
conflict but to decide, in the given circumstances, which claims bears
the greater weight. Does the State's need for doctors justify holding a
reluctant hand to the plow? Or does justice demand that, after years of
service, an individual be allowed to step away, unshackled by burdens
they can no longer bear?
9. To address this issue, it is imperative for this Court to consider the
Supreme Court's judgment in Achal Singh (supra). The issue before the
bench was whether, under Rule 56 of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:22:47
Rules (as amended), an employee has an unfettered right to seek
voluntary retirement by serving a three-month notice to the state
government, or whether the state government, under the explanation to
Rule 56(c), can decline such a request in the public interest. The bench,
while upholding the constitutionality of the rules, observed as follows:
"35. The decisions of the Government cater to the needs of the
human life and carry the objectives of public interest. The
respondents are claiming the right to retire under Part III of
the Constitution such right cannot be supreme than right to
life. It has to be interpreted along with the rights of the State
Government in Part IV of the Constitution as it is obligatory
upon the State Government to make an endeavour under
Article 47 to look after the provisions for health and nutrition.
The fundamental duties itself are enshrined under Article
51(A) which require observance. The right under Article
19(1)(g) is subject to the interest of the general public and once
service has been joined, the right can only be exercised as per
rules and not otherwise. Such conditions of service made in
public interest cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or
taking away the right of liberty. The provisions of the rule in
question cannot be said to be against the Constitutional
provisions. In case of voluntary retirement, gratuity, pensions,
and other dues etc. are payable to the employee in accordance
with rules and when there is a requirement of the services of
an employee; the appointing authority may exercise its right
not to accept the prayer for voluntary retirement. In case all
the doctors are permitted to retire, in that situation, there
would be a chaos and no doctor would be left in the
Government hospitals, which would be against the concept of
the welfare state and injurious to public interest...
38. Under Article 47 it is the duty of the State to improve the
public health, which is a primary duty under the Directive
Principles of the State Policy and the statutory expression
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:22:47
which may be enforced. When we consider Article 51A
containing Fundamental Duties, it is a duty of every citizen
under Article 51A(g) to have compassion for living creatures
and to have humanism is also contemplated under Article
51A(h) and to strive towards excellence in all spheres of
individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly
rises to higher levels of endeavours and achievement. It cannot
be done by depriving poorest of the poor essential medical
services and to leave them at the mercy of doctors. There
cannot be an exodus from the Government Medical Services at
large, which is being projected in the instant case, definitely
this cannot be permitted to happen within four corners of law
as it has to be living organism and has to live up to the essence
and spirit of constitution and cannot ignore and overlook
needs of poorest strata of the society."
10. A question not unlike the one before this Court arose in the Calcutta
High Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Madhab Sarkar 3, where
the claim of a doctor seeking voluntary retirement met with denial.
There, the court turned to Rule 75(aaaa) of the West Bengal Service
Rules, which, by its plain terms, carves out an exception, excluding
members of the West Bengal Health Services, the Medical Education
Services, the Public Health-cum-Administrative Services, the Dental
Service, and the Dental Education Services from the general right of
voluntary retirement. The court, in its reasoning, found that the law had
spoken with clarity, placing upon doctors a duty that rose above mere
personal preference, a duty framed in the larger canvas of public
welfare. The relevant portions are produced below:
WP ST 120 of 2022.
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:22:47
"The health sector being a most important sector in the
administration of the system for not only rendition of the
services to the society but to the humanity as well. The health
of the citizenry plays a very pivotal role in the development of
the society and the country. The people doctor ratio in the
country is abysmally low and there is a dearth and paucity of
the Doctors at the Government Hospitals where the poorest of
the poor got benefit of the treatment"
11. The Calcutta High Court also turned its attention to Note-3 appended to
Rule 75(aaa) of the Service Rules, which affirms the Government's
authority to deny voluntary retirement when public interest so
demands. It observed that once such a determination is made, it must
be given full force and effect unless the provision is so rigid as to admit
no reasonable limitation. Finding no such infirmity in the rule, the
Court upheld its application and directed the doctor to resume duty
without delay.
12. A review of the foregoing precedents leaves no room for doubt that the
demands of public health and the imperatives of societal welfare
require the maintenance of a stable and sufficient body of physicians in
service to the state. The physician, like the judge, holds a station not for
herself alone but for the common good. When one doctor retires, it is
not merely an individual decision; it is a fissure in the foundation upon
which the health of the people rests. If one follows, and then another,
unchecked by the necessity of reasoned regulation, the state is left not
with a functioning system of care but with a hollow structure, unfit to
bear the weight of the public's need. The law, in its wisdom, does not
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:22:47
permit a doctrine of absolute individualism where the withdrawal of
service, en masse or in isolation, leaves the vulnerable without aid.
13. A thread runs through the judgments examined, a common principle
woven into the fabric of their reasoning. In each case, the courts looked
not only to the individual right to retire but to the statutory framework
that tempers that right in service of the greater good. Across states,
Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and others, governments have
codified the power to reject voluntary retirement when the withdrawal
of service threatens the well-being of the public. It is within these rules
that the balance was struck, where the scales tipped toward the State
and, by extension, toward the people it serves.
14. Yet in Odisha, the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 remain silent where they
ought to speak. They lack the safeguard that other states have rightly
recognized, that a profession whose absence imperils life itself cannot
be surrendered at will. The law, in its present form, leaves an opening, a
path unguarded, through which a public servant, however essential his
role, may exit without restraint. But the absence of a rule does not
negate the presence of a duty. A physician is no mere functionary; she is
an agent of public trust, a steward of life itself.
15. A doctor, upon taking the Hippocratic Oath, does more than embrace
the science of healing; she assumes a higher duty to society, one that
does not bend to convenience or withdraw at will. To wear the mantle
of a lifesaver is to accept that personal interest must, at times, yield to
the greater public need.
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:22:47
16. A doctor, trained at the expense of the State, has been the beneficiary of
a system that, without immediate recompense, has invested in her skill
and knowledge for the greater good of society. It is not the individual
alone who bears the burden of her education; it is the public that has
furnished the means, the resources, and the opportunity. To allow her,
once fashioned into a vessel of healing, to cast aside her obligations in
pursuit of greener pastures, heedless of the need that bred her, would
be to permit a kind of opportunism that the law cannot abide. The duty
owed is not one of compulsion but of conscience, not of servitude but of
service. If the community has laboured to create the healer, the healer
must not, when the moment of her usefulness is at hand, turn away
from the very hands that uplifted him.
17. Yet, for all its weight, this duty is not absolute. The obligations of a
public servant do not rest on moral sentiment alone. A profession,
however noble, must be anchored in clear rules and governed by
certainty, not left to the shifting landscape of personal interpretation. A
government doctor is not merely a healer; she is also a public servant,
bound by the rights and responsibilities that come with that role. If the
state demands continued service in the face of a crisis, it must do so
through explicit law, not vague expectation. A legal obligation must be
clear, not implied. If the law seeks to command service beyond the
ordinary, it must not rely on appeals to conscience alone, but must lay
down firm rules and regulations, ensuring that those who enter its
service know precisely what they are pledging and precisely what may
be asked of them. For, where the law is silent, principle must speak, and
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:22:47
where principle demands a higher obligation, it is upon the law to rise
and meet it.
18. For a moment, let us set aside the issue of legal certainty and focus on
the reality before us. A troubling pattern has emerged as doctors across
the country continue to seek voluntary retirement in alarming numbers.
This is not merely an administrative inconvenience but a growing
public health crisis. If left unaddressed, this unchecked exodus will
weaken the very foundation of the healthcare system. It will leave the
sick without healers, the suffering without aid, and the state unable to
fulfil its most fundamental duty, which is the protection of life.
19. It is tempting to believe that law alone can stem the tide, that a statutory
bar on retirement will hold the system intact. But legislation, without
more, is no cure; it is a patch upon a fracture too deep to be mended by
restraint alone. The true remedy lies not merely in restricting departure,
but in removing the very reasons doctors seek to leave. To prevent
doctors from leaving, we must give them reason to stay.
20. If doctors find themselves compelled to retire over matters as routine as
transfers, then it is not the law alone that has failed them, it is the very
system meant to support them. Strengthening healthcare infrastructure,
improving working conditions, and ensuring that those entrusted with
healing others are not themselves burdened by inefficiency and neglect,
these are not secondary considerations. They are the very heart of the
solution. A law that restrains without reform is not protection but mere
postponement. The state must not merely command service but make
service itself worthy of commitment.
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:22:47
21. Hence, where the legislature has not spoken, where the executive has
not acted, the duty falls upon the courts to lay down the gavel with
certainty, to step into the breach, and to ensure that justice does not
falter for want of command.
22. Recognizing the indispensable role of physicians in safeguarding public
health and the growing crisis of attrition among medical professionals,
this Court, in the exercise of its constitutional duty to uphold the right
to healthcare, issues the following broad policy recommendations for
the government's consideration in drafting a framework for the
retention of doctors within the healthcare system:
a) The government shall ensure that compensation structures for
physicians are reformed in a manner that is equitable, transparent, and
commensurate with their professional contribution. Remuneration must
be aligned with evolving healthcare priorities, ensuring that the pursuit
of financial sustainability by health systems does not result in unjust
diminution of physicians' wages.
b) The State shall undertake necessary measures to integrate work-
life balance principles into the healthcare profession, ensuring that the
physical and mental well-being of physicians is preserved. Rigid clinical
schedules that undermine a physician's right to family life and personal
wellness shall be subject to revision in favour of flexible and sustainable
working conditions.
c) Physicians, being central to the provision of healthcare, must be
accorded a substantive role in the decision-making processes that
govern clinical operations, resource allocation, and policy formulation.
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:22:47
d) Healthcare institutions must be mandated to adopt robust and
effective staffing models that ensure sufficient support personnel, so
that physicians are neither overburdened with administrative tasks nor
unduly encumbered with duties that can be competently performed by
allied healthcare professionals.
e) The government shall prioritize investment in technological
interventions that ease the administrative and documentary burdens
imposed upon physicians. Any introduction of digital systems or
artificial intelligence tools must be carried out in consultation with
medical professionals.
f) The government shall initiate and oversee the establishment of
mental health and wellness programs specifically tailored to address
physician burnout. A culture that stigmatizes help-seeking behaviors
among medical professionals shall be actively dismantled, and systems
of peer support, counselling, and psychological care shall be integrated
within healthcare institutions.
g) Given the critical nature of physician retention, the government
shall direct healthcare systems to undertake periodic internal reviews,
including structured feedback mechanisms, to assess and address
concerns raised by medical professionals regarding workplace
conditions, compensation, and administrative inefficiencies.
23. It is expected that the government shall act upon these
recommendations with the urgency and gravity that the present crisis
demands. The retention of physicians within the healthcare system is
not merely a matter of administrative efficiency or economic
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:22:47
pragmatism but a question of ensuring the continuity of essential
services that sustains the very framework of public health.
V. CONCLUSION:
24. For the reasons set forth, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition.
The scarcity of doctors is not a mere inconvenience but a matter of grave
public concern. To permit the petitioner's retirement would set a
precedent that risks unravelling the very fabric of the healthcare system.
The demands of individual preference must yield where the greater
public good is at stake.
25. Moreover, the concerned Department shall amend the provisions on
voluntary retirement in the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, aligning them
with the evolving framework in other States. This reform shall be
undertaken within three months from the date of this judgment.
26. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of as dismissed.
27. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 14th February, 2025/
