Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The case of the petitioners is that they had been appointed as HCMS Doctors between periods ranging from the year 1997 to 2000. They were admitted against Post Graduate Courses against the HCMS quota (40% State quota) in the Forensic Medicine Department, PGIMS, Rohtak and completed the said courses from periods ranging from 2006 to 2010. It is not disputed that they have executed a bond in favour of the State dated 05.03.2007 (Annexure P-1) whereby, a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was agreed to be paid in case the service to the State in the HCMS cadre for a period of 7 years was not completed after return to duty. The said bond was executed at the time the post graduate course was to start. The policy in pursuance of which the bond was undergone and executed is dated 24.02.2006 (Annexure P-16). It is pertinent to notice that neither the terms of the bond nor the policy is subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.

The argument of the senior counsel for the petitioner is that one Gajender Singh has been given the benefits and allowed to join the PGIMS, Rohtak vide communication dated 20.08.2008 (Annexure P-8) wherein, he could either deposit the bond money or has to serve in PGIMS, Rohtak till 14.05.2013 and his lien was not to be retained in the HCMS cadre. Reliance has also been placed upon the fact that one Dr. Deepak Jain had also been given the benefit that he would complete the remaining bond period with the PGIMS, Rohtak. Accordingly, senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the decision of the Union of India (Annexure P-2) that the bond could be enforced with the new employer if it was a State Government Undertaking/Organization, the petitioner should also be given the necessary relief. Similarly, reliance has been placed upon letter dated 2 of 15 06.01.2012 (Annexure P-17) to submit that when the service of the experts is required, decision has been taken that the bond period can be relaxed as the services done in the medical colleges would be considered as the service of Haryana Government. Resultantly, reliance has been placed upon the deputation orders (Annexures P-18 to P-20) wherein, certain Professors and Assistant Professors have been deputed with the medical colleges in the State.

In contrast, the stand of the State is that the petitioners had executed a bond in the favour of the State of Haryana to render service to the State Government in HCMS after return to their duty for 7 years or in lieu thereof, deposit of Rs.7,00,000/-. On selection as Assistant Professors at PGIMS, Rohtak on 29.12.2011 (Annexure P-4), they left the State services by breaking their bonds and are liable to pay the said amounts for breach of the bond as the PGIMS, Rohtak was an autonomous body. The post of Assistant Professor falls under the Haryana Civil Medical Education Services Cadre, which is different from the HCMS cadre and, therefore, PGIMS, Rohtak could not accept the bond for the remaining period. Resultantly, the petitioners are bound to pay Rs.7,00,000/- for the breach of the bond.

The defence is that the MBBS Doctors pertaining to HCMS cadre are being given preferential treatment by way of 40% quota in the medical colleges of the Government of Haryana as well as certain other medial colleges. During the post graduate courses, they are paid full salary, increments, ACPs and other service benefits including seniority. The State Government spends lot of money making the MBBS Doctors post graduate degree holders. The facilities are granted in lieu of the bond executed for serving the State of Haryana in HCMS cadre for a period of 7 years. The tendency to migrate at the cost of the State Government and leave service after becoming post graduate, therefore, defeated the purpose of the policy whereby, 40% of the seats were reserved. The health services were being affected in the government hospitals which was being frequented by poor segments of the society.