Orissa High Court Blocks VRS for Doctors, Calls for Pension Rule Amendments

It has been observed that there is rising retirement of government doctors under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) across India.

As growing concern emerges due to this large scale departures of doctors, the Orissa High Court has recommended that the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Odisha, make the required changes to the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (also known as "the 1992 Rules").

Case Details:

Title: Dr. Snigdha Prava Mishra v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case number: W.P.(C) No. 27920 of 2024

Judgement Date: 14^th February 2025

Counsel (Petitioner): Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal (Advocate)

Counsel (Respondents): Mr. Saswat Das (Addl. Government Advocate)

Details of Case:

Dr. Snigdha Prava Mishra worked as a Professor at the MKCG Medical College and Hospital in Berhampur. She was sent a transfer notice to Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi, in 2024 to serve as the Superintendent of SRM Medical College and Hospital.

However, she refused the same and requested to be lodged at Shri Jagannath Medical College and Hospital, Puri instead.

Her request was denied and thereafter, she went for a leave due to health issues. Due to shortage of medical staff at Shri Jagannath Medical College and Hospital, Puri, she was immediately asked to join.

Subsequently, the doctor filed a Voluntary Retirement (VR) under government scheme stating her health condition.

A review committee assessed the case and rejected her application for the VR because of inadequacy of doctors at the SGJM college and hospital at Puri.

The only question that came up for discussion was whether, in accordance with Rule 42 of the 1992 Rules, a government doctor could choose to voluntarily retire after completing twenty years of qualifying service, or if the State could at times reject her request and compel her to remain in service in the public interest.

The Orissa HC referred to previous judgement of Supreme Court:

 State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Achal Singh (2018) and also the case of Calcutta HC: State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Madhab Sarkar (2023) in which a similar situation had occured.

Given the aforementioned precedents, Justice Panigrahi believed that the state needed to maintain a constant and adequate number of doctors in order to meet the demands of public health and the needs of societal welfare.

“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 permit a doctrine of absolute individualism where the withdrawal of service, en masse or in isolation, leaves the vulnerable without aid.” 

The judge emphasized that the service requirements in many states are set forth in a way that makes it difficult for government doctors to leave their jobs voluntarily. Nevertheless, this goal has not been in line with the 1992 Rules.

“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,” he said.

The Court acknowledged certain causes and deficiencies that force doctors to leave their jobs in the middle of their careers, even though it was dissatisfied with their departure.

“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.”

The petitioner's writ petition was denied by the court. Prior to releasing the ruling, it requested that the government make the necessary changes to the Pension Rules to keep physicians in the healthcare system in the face of an alarming trend of voluntary retirements.

“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.”

REFERENCES:

1. Dutta, Jyoti Prakash. 2025. "Orissa HC Recommends Imposing Restrictions on Voluntary Retirement of Govt Doctors, Issues Directions for Better Working Conditions." Live Law. Accessed February 2025. https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/orissa-high-court/orissa-high-court-order-government-doctor-voluntary-retirement-odisha-civil-services-rules-amendment-285354.

2. Gov.In. 2025. "Orissa High Court Case Document: WP(C)/27920/2024." High Court Services, e-Courts. Accessed February 2025. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqDNX2JhYOg5wJMTWPMeLtX4Yplwlw5qR4AU3yNr0mEoz&caseno=WP(C)/27920/2024&cCode=1&appFlag=&cino=ODHC010794872024&state_code=11.

(Input from various sources)

(Rehash/Sanika Dongre/MSM)