The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a Doctor cannot be compelled to work for State after he deposits the bond amount as a consequence of its violation.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking direction to Respondents to issue No Objection Certificate in favour of the Petitioner for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (Neonatology) at AIIMS, Bilaspur.

The single bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma observed, "There cannot be any quarrel with proposition of law laid down in cases, detailed hereinabove, that bonds executed by Doctors, after their having done MBBS, medical courses, etc., to serve the State are binding and can be enforced, but since petitioner herein has agreed to pay the entire bond money i.e. Rs.60,00,000/-, he cannot be compelled to work against his wishes. Very purpose and object of furnishing bond is to ensure that Doctor, who has studied on Government expenditure, is made to work for State, after his/her having done MBBS Course, Medical Courses etc., but once bond condition itself provides that in the event of violation of bond, bond amount shall be payable by the executant of bond, it cannot be said that even after deposit of bond money, in terms of bond executed by the petitioner, he can be compelled to work for the bond period."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Onkar Jairath while the Respondent was represented by Advocate General Anup Rattan.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer in the year 2009 on contract basis and thereafter his services were regularized from 2011. After being regularized, he completed his M.D. in Pediatrics from I.G.M.C., Shimla in the year 2013-16 and thereafter Doctorate of Medicine in Neonatology in the year 2023 from P.G.I., Chandigarh. After having done M.D., Petitioner joined back in the year 2016 and thereafter on completion of his Doctorate of Medicine, he joined back in I.G.M.C., Shimla. In the month of August 2023, he was designated as Assistant Professor in the Department of Pediatrics. Later in November in the same year, he applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Neonatology) and was duly selected for the same. However, the Respondent didn't issue him the required No Objection Certificate to make the switch.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is ready and willing to deposit sum of ₹60,00,000/- as bond money, subject to his being given final N.OC. on acceptance of technical resignation.

Relying on Supreme Court's decision in Association of Medical Super Specialty Aspirants and Residents and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, the Respondent submitted that all the Doctors, who have executed compulsory bonds, shall be bound by the conditions contained therein. It was further averred in the reply that sponsorship is a special policy of the State Government to improve the Specialist/Super Specialty services in the State and further to provide best possible medical facilities to the people in the largest interest of the patients. Respondents claimed that No Objection Certificate cannot be claimed as a matter of right, rather, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner deserves outright rejection on account of the fact that State is facing acute shortage of Specialist Doctors.

Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that once the Petitioner has submitted bond, he is under obligation to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh for the bond period and on account of afore fact, Respondent-State cannot be compelled to issue N.O.C. to the Petitioner enabling him to join at AIIMS, Bilaspur

"Since condition in the bond itself suggests that on account of non-execution of bond, person responsible for executing the bond shall be liable to pay the bond money (Rs.60,00,000/- in the case at hand) and person responsible, i.e. petitioner herein, is ready and willing to pay the bond money, in no eventuality, he can be compelled to work during the bond period," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Dr. Ashok Garg vs. State of H.P. and Others (2025:HHC:12146)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Onkar Jairath, Advocate Anshul Jairath

Respondent- Advocate General Anup Rattan, Advocate Rajan Kahol, Advocate B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate General Vishal Panwar, Deputy Advocate General Ravi Chauhan

Click here to read/ download Order


Himachal Pradesh High CourtJustice Sandeep Sharma

Sheetal Joon