Expressing concern over the troubling pattern of doctors continuing to seek voluntary retirement in alarming numbers, the Orissa High Court has issued a slew of policy recommendations for the government’s consideration in drafting a framework for the retention of doctors within the healthcare system.

The High Court was considering a Writ Petition filed by a doctor challenging the order 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.

The Single Bench of Justice S.K. Panigrahi held, “The government shall ensure that compensation structures for physicians are reformed in a manner that is equitable, transparent, and commensurate with their professional contribution…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.”

Advocate Anjan Kumar Biswal represented the Petitioner, while AGA Saswat Das represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

The petitioner, Dr. Snigdhaa Prava Mishra, is a Professor in Physiology at MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur. 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. The petitioner sought cancellation of the transfer order, requesting to be accommodated as a Professor in Physiology at SJMCH, Puri but the same was denied. Thereafter, she applied for leave on health grounds.

Following this, a recall notice was issued, directing her to immediately join the SRM Medical College and Hospital, Bhawanipatna, but instead of joining, the petitioner submitted an application for Voluntary Retirement (VR) from government service, citing her illness as the reason. The VR Committee rejected her application, stating that her retirement could not be permitted due to an acute shortage of doctors in government medical institutions across the state. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, observed, “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.”

Referring to the judgments in State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Achal Singh (2018) and State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Madhab Sarkar (2022), the Bench said, “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.

It was further noticed that 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. “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”, it added.

Policy Recommendations

Thus, the High Court, in the exercise of its constitutional duty to uphold the right to healthcare, issued the following broad policy recommendations for the government’s consideration in drafting a framework for the retention of doctors within the healthcare system:

  • The government shall ensure that compensation structures for physicians are reformed in a manner that is equitable, transparent, and commensurate with their professional contribution.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • The government shall initiate and oversee the establishment of mental health and wellness programs specifically tailored to address physician burnout.
  • 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.

Conclusion

Coming to the matter at hand, the Bench disposed of the Writ Petition as dismissed. “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”, it said while also adding, “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.”

Cause Title: Dr. Snigdha Prava Mishra v. State of Odisha and Ors. (Case No.: W.P.(C) No.27920 of 2024)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Anjan Kumar Biswal

Opposite Party: AGA Saswat Das

Click here to read/download Order



Orissa High CourtJustice SK Panigrahi

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.