Orissa HC Recommends Imposing Restrictions On Voluntary Retirement Of Govt Doctors, Issues Directions For Better Working Conditions

The Orissa High Court has suggested the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Odisha to bring in necessary amendments to the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 ('the 1992 Rules') so as to put a bar on large-scale exit of government doctors through the voluntary retirement scheme.

Expressing deep concern over huge exodus of government physicians, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed –

“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.”

Case Background

Dr. Snigdha Prava Mishra was working as a Professor at the MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur. In 2024, she was transferred as the Superintendent of SRM Medical College and Hospital, Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi. Being unhappy with the transfer, she submitted a representation requesting to be accommodated at Shri Jagannath Medical College and Hospital, Puri instead.

Her representation was denied after which she went on leave on health grounds. Subsequently, a recall notice was issued, directing her to join at the transferred position immediately. However, instead of joining the new assignment, she applied for voluntary retirement on grounds of illness.

A review committee for voluntary retirements rejected her request 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. Being aggrieved by such denial, she impugned the decision of the committee before the High Court.

Court's Observations

The sole issue which cropped up consideration was whether a government doctor can be allowed to voluntarily retire after completing the qualifying service of twenty years, as per Rule 42 of the 1992 Rules or the State can, at times, deny her request for such retirement and make her continue in service in public interest.

To address the issue, the Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Achal Singh (2018), where the question was whether 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 can decline such a request in the public interest. While deciding the question, the Supreme Court had held as follows –

“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…”

The Court also relied upon State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Madhab Sarkar, 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 61, a case from the Calcutta High Court where a similar issue was involved. While declining to approve the voluntary retirement of a doctor, the Court had held that the people to doctor ratio in the country is abysmally low and there is a dearth of doctors in Government Hospitals, where the poorest of the poor get benefit of the treatment. Therefore, mechanically approving voluntary retirement requests of government doctors would not be in public interest.

In view of the aforesaid precedents, Justice Panigrahi was of the view 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 permit a doctrine of absolute individualism where the withdrawal of service, en masse or in isolation, leaves the vulnerable without aid,” he held.

The Judge underlined that in many states, the service rules are carved in a manner which make voluntary exit of government doctors from service a cumbersome process. However, the 1992 Rules has not been aligned with such a similar objective.

“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 added.

Though the Court was dissatisfied with the exit of doctors from service, but it simultaneously recognised certain factors/lacunae which compel them to leave their work midway.

“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.”

Therefore, acknowledging the vital role of physicians in safeguarding public health, the Court issued the following recommendations for the government's consideration in drafting a framework for the retention of doctors within the healthcare system –

1. 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.
2. The State shall undertake necessary measures to integrate worklife 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.

With the above directives, the Court dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner. Before parting with the judgment, it asked the government to amend the Pension Rules suitably in order to retain doctors in the healthcare system against a concerning 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.”

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

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

Date of Judgment: February 14, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Saswat Das, Addl. Govt. Advocate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 36

Click Here To Read/Download Order