Imposition Of Bond For Medical Officers Who Took Study Leave Is Justified, But Prohibition On Legal Recourse Is Not; Chhattisgarh HC

Chhattisgarh High Court: The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru upheld the conditions imposed on an Ayurvedic Medical Officer's study leave, including the denial of advance increments and the requirement to serve a bond. The Court held that the conditions were legally justified and consistent with government policy. However, it quashed a condition prohibiting the officer from pursuing legal action, finding it violative of Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872.BackgroundDr. Ravichand Meshram, an Ayurvedic Medical Officer, was appointed in 2018 while still pursuing a postgraduate degree. He was granted study leave to complete the degree, but the State imposed several conditions, including the denial of two advance increments and the requirement to sign a bond committing him to serve for five years. Dr. Meshram challenged these conditions, arguing that they were not authorized under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010.ArgumentsThe appellant, represented by Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, argued that the conditions were unduly harsh and imposed without legal basis. He contended that the CG Civil Services (Leave) Rules did not authorize the imposition of a bond or denial of increments. He also argued that the conditions were discriminatory, as similar employees in other departments were granted study leave without such restrictions. Additionally, Dr. Meshram claimed he was forced to accept the conditions under duress, as he had no other options.The State, represented by Mr. S.S. Baghel, argued that the conditions were consistent with government policy. The State justified the bond by citing the significant financial investment in training medical officers, which warranted a service commitment. It also defended the denial of increments, pointing out that Dr. Meshram had not completed his postgraduate degree at the time of his appointment, unlike other doctors who had received increments for holding advanced qualifications at the time of hiring.Court's ReasoningFirstly, the Court addressed the bond requirement. It found that the imposition of a bond for medical officers who received study leave was both reasonable and justified. The Court noted that the State had invested substantial resources in training its medical personnel and that requiring a service commitment in return was a legitimate policy objective. The bond ensured that the State's investment in human capital was not wasted, as the officers would serve the public after completing their education.Secondly, the Court considered the denial of advance increments. It held that this condition was also justified, as the State's policy granted increments only to officers who had completed their postgraduate education before their appointment. Dr. Meshram had not finished his degree when he was appointed, and therefore, he could not claim the same benefits as officers who had already obtained their qualifications.Thirdly, the Court ruled that the provision that prohibited Dr. Meshram from pursuing legal action was illegal, as it violated Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872. Section 28 prohibits any agreement that restricts a party's right to seek legal recourse. The Court emphasized that employees could not be deprived of their fundamental right to challenge the terms of their employment contracts in court, even if they had agreed to a bond. The Court quashed this specific condition, allowing Dr. Meshram to retain his legal rights. Thus, the writ appeal was dismissed, with the Court upholding the bond and denial of increments as lawful and consistent with government policy. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Chandresh ShrivastavaCounsel for the Respondent: Mr. S.S. BaghelLL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (CH) 41Case Number: 2024:CGHC:40009-DB Decided on: 14/10/2024Click Here To Read/Download Order

Imposition Of Bond For Medical Officers Who Took Study Leave Is Justified, But Prohibition On Legal Recourse Is Not; Chhattisgarh HC

Pranav Kumar

Tags