Bombay High Court Stays Parts Of GR Barring Private Practice By Govt Doctors

The petitioner, Dr. AS Rathod is a medical officer in a sub-district hospital in Bhor taluka of Pune. He filed a petition challenging the government resolution (GR) dated 7^th August, 2012, which forbids doctors from pursuing private practice during their non-duty hours. He has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the state to give an option to the petitioner either to accept NPA in lieu of private practice or to do private practice while in Government service.

The petition, through advocate Vinod Sangvikar, challenges clauses 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.7 of the GR. "…. clause No. 4.1 which caused the serious grievance and patent injustice with the petitioner", the petition stated.

In August 2012, the state government issued a GR mandating doctors in government service to accept non practicing allowance (NPA). By accepting NPA, the government doctors couldn't continue or start their own private practice. The petition stated that at the time of entry of petitioner to service, a GR issued in 1972 was operative before the impugned GR. The 1972 GR provided for an option to government doctors of continuing private practice if they so desired or accepting NPA in lieu of private practice.

As a result of the impugned GR, the government doctors have to compulsorily take non practicing allowance (clause 4.1). Further, the doctors can't change location assigned to them by the state (clause 4.2). By accepting NPA government doctors can't start and register a dispensary or hospital in their own name (clause 4.3). They also cannot practice in any other hospital or be in partnership with any other hospital (clause 4.5). The GR provides for action under Maharashtra Civil Services Rules if a government doctor violates any of the aforementioned provisions (clause 4.7).

The Court issued an ad-interim stay on clauses 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.7 of the GR dated 07.08.2012

Case Title: Dr. Anil Shankar Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.