Allahabad High Court
Dr. Abhishek Kumar And 99 Others vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of ... on 4 March, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12977 Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2272 of 2024 Petitioner :- Dr. Abhishek Kumar And 99 Others Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Health/Family Welfare New Delhi And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidhu Bhushan Kalia,Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Abhinav Trivedi,Anupras Singh,C.S.C.,Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava,Shubham Tripathi Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Vidhu Bhushan Kalia learned counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3, Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for opposite parties 4 and 9, Mr. Shubham Tripathi learned counsel for opposite parties 5 and 7 and Mr. Gagan Katyayan Advocate holding brief on behalf of Ms. Pushpila Visth learned counsel for opposite party No.6. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party No.8 stands dispensed with.
2. Petition has been filed challenging government order dated 7th March, 2018 so far as it imposes the condition of a bond on students of super speciality (DM/M.Ch.) course and the policy of remuneration after completion of the course. Further prayer for preparation of uniform policy for the contract/bond period service of doctors in the light of letter dated 27th October, 2021 issued by the National Medical Commission has also been sought.
3. In the alternative, prayer has been made for a direction to opposite parties to reduce the bond period from two years to one year and the default amount from rupees hundred lacs to rupees twenty lacs and for setting of the period of Covid-19 duty towards the compulsory bond service period. Prayer has also been made for a direction to concerned authority for payment of equal salary for the post of Assistant Professor (Super Specialty) as equivalent to regular Assistant Professor (Super Specialty).
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by means of paragraph 1(3) the aforesaid government order, period of two years mandatory rural service for bond period has been indicated with regard to super specialty posts as indicated herein above and in default thereof payment of rupees hundred lacs.
5. It is submitted that the entire issue was considered by the National Medical Commission which by its letter dated 27th October, 2021 has indicated deliberations with regard to formation of mandatory rural service scheme and uniform bond policy and has made its recommendation for doing away with the bond policy and for implementation of policy for mandatory rural service scheme. It is submitted that however despite the aforesaid letter having been issued on 27th October, 2021, no decision has yet been taken by the Government of India.
6. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered in the case of Association of Medical Super Specialty Aspirants and Residents and others versus Union of India and others (2019) 12 SCR 1011 as well as judgment rendered by Madras High Court dated 2nd February, 2023 in writ petition No. 26556 of 2022 and 25617 of 2022, Dr. Jayakrishnan M.P. versus State of Tamil Nadu and others.
7. Learned counsel for opposite parties submit that since the recommendation has already been made by the National Medical Commission by means of letter dated 27th October, 2021, direction may be issued for its consideration.
8. In view of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the letter dated 27th October, 2021, the opposite party No.1 i.e. Principal Secretary, Food & Supply Department, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow is directed to take a final decision with regard to the recommendation dated 27th October, 2021 made by the National Medical Commission expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority alongwith a copy of the said recommendations and the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner. With regard to prayer Nos. 6 and 8, liberty is granted to petitioners to file their representations before the appropriate authority of the State Government who may consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.3.2025 prabhat