Bombay High Court Passes Interim Order For Reinstatement Of 17 Govt Hospital Doctors Pending Retirement Age Dispute

The Bombay High Court recently granted interim relief to at least 17 doctors and directed the Maharashtra Government to reinstate them in government hospitals till they complete 60 years of age.

The order, however, would be subject to the final outcome of the petition.

The doctors alleged they were forcefully relieved from their services of 30-35 years owing to the misinterpretation of a 2022 government notification.

A Division bench comprising Justices Nitin Jamdar and Manjusha Deshpande observed,

“Generally, by mandatory interim injunction, the Court may not direct that an employee be taken into service. However, the position before us is peculiar. The State Government has supported the interpretation placed on Rule 10 by the Petitioners.”

The petitioners are permanent Medical officers working in the Public Health Department of the State of Maharashtra. They approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal to continue in service in case they were deemed to be relieved from May 31, 2023.

On August 31, 2023 the tribunal dismissed their application following which they approached the High Court.

Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 specified the retirement age of government servants such as the Petitioners as 58 years. However, owing to the dearth of Medical officers, the Public Health Department issued a resolution on August 29, 2018 and decided to extend the age of retirement to 60 years.

It was further resolved that an amendment would be made to the Rules. The amendment finally came to effect on February 23, 2023. However, the proviso in the said notification said its effect will be only till May 31, 2023 which resulted in such doctors being relieved from their respective posts.

Senior Advocate Virendra Tulzapurkar along with Advocate Abhijeet Desai for the petitioners contended that this interpretation was entirely incorrect. He contended that Medical officers who hadn’t crossed 60 years of age till May 31, 2023, would be entitled to continue in service till 60 years.

“The Petitioners have made out a prima facie case. The stand of the State Government itself, more particularly the Chief Secretary, which is reiterated before us by the learned Advocate General which supports the interpretation placed on Rule 10 by the Petitioner…” Court stated.

Before the tribunal the Health and the Finance Departments of the State had taken different positions after which the Chief Secretary was asked to take a stand. The CS agreed with the Finance Department as it was the concerned administrative department, which supported the petitioner’s interpretation of the notification. However, ignoring this stand the Tribunal relied on a Cabinet note from July 2018 to deny relief to the petitioners.

“Though, it is correct that the interpretation given by the State Government to statutory Rule will not preclude [the court] from taking a different view, for the interim order, we cannot overlook the stand of the State Government through the Chief Secretary reiterated before us by the learned Advocate General. Considering these factors and since, if no interim relief is granted, the Petitions would become infructuous, we are inclined to grant interim order,” the court said.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11453 OF 2023

Case No - Dr. Mahendra Vilas Phalke And Ors vs State of Maharashtra

Click Here To Read/Download Order