DB stays order relaxing bond conditions to PG doctors

United News of India

3 hours ago

Shimla, June 8 (UNI) The Himachal Pradesh High Court has stayed a Single Bench order that had directed the release of original MBBS degrees and undated cheques to a group of doctors who had completed their postgraduate studies.
The state government preferred a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 285 of 2025) against the decision, arguing that the doctors were trying to avoid their legal obligation to serve in government health services as agreed under a bond.
The division bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma stayed the impugned order, maintaining that the bond conditions and two years of mandatory service in the rural areas couldn't be relaxed once MBBS signed the bond.
The State, represented by Advocate General Anup Rattan along with Pranay Pratap Singh and Swati Draik, told the court that each doctor had signed a bond of Rs 40 lakh in January 2022, agreeing to work for the State for two years after completing their course.
They were also paid monthly stipends by the government during their studies. The policy behind the bond aims to ensure that trained doctors serve poor and rural areas of Himachal Pradesh.
However, after the results were declared on April 7, 2025, the doctors wrote to the government on April 9, asking for the return of their degrees and cheques, claiming that they hadn't received field posting orders within the time limit set by the policy.
The policy says that posting orders must be issued within one month of the result declaration, failing which the bond would not apply. The doctors argued that this condition was not met.
The State disagreed, explaining that the candidates had only been officially relieved from their colleges on March 10, 2025, and that the posting orders were issued on April 10, 2025. They argued that the timeline should start from the relieving date, not the result date, and that the State had acted within the required time.
The State further accused the doctors of trying to escape their service obligations while having already taken full benefit of the scheme for three years.
The Division Bench found that the matter needs closer examination. The court noted that the doctors approached the court on April 23, 2025—after the government had already issued their posting orders. It questioned why the doctors didn't first seek enforcement of the postings if they were serious about joining service.
As a result, the High Court stayed the Single Judge's directions to release the degrees and cheques.
However, it allowed the part of the judgement that asked the State to take action against officials responsible for any delay in issuing the posting orders. The case would now be heard again on August 4, 2025.
This case raises important questions about the enforcement of service bonds and the responsibilities of medical professionals who receive government-funded education. The court would consider whether the doctors' actions were genuine or an attempt to avoid public service duties.
UNI ML ARN