Orissa HC directs government to amend VRS rules to prevent ‘exit without restraint’

CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has directed the state government to amend within three months the provisions on voluntary retirement in the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, while endorsing rejection of application of Dr Snigdha Prava Mishra, a professor in Physiology, for voluntary retirement from service (VRS).

While dismissing Dr Mishra’s petition recently, Justice SK Panigrahi noted that across states like Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, governments have codified the power to reject voluntary retirement when the withdrawal of service threatens the well-being of the public.

“Yet in Odisha, the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 remain silent where they ought to speak. They lack the safeguard that other states have rightly recognised, that a profession whose absence imperils life itself cannot be surrendered at will. The law, in its present form, leaves an opening, a path unguarded, through which a public servant, however essential his role, may exit without restraint,” Justice Panigrahi observed.

“The concerned department shall amend the provisions on voluntary retirement in the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, aligning them with the evolving framework in other states. This reform shall be undertaken within three months from the date of this judgment,” Justice Panigrahi directed in his February 14 order, the full text of which was released on February 24.

According to case records, the Health and Family Welfare Department transferred Dr Mishra, a professor at MKCG Hospital, Berhampur, to SRM Medical College and Hospital, Bhawanipatna.

Instead of complying, she sought cancellation of the order and requested to be posted as a Professor in Physiology at SJMCH, Puri. When her request was turned down, she applied for leave on health grounds. Then she submitted an application for VRS, citing illness after she was directed to join her new posting without delay.

However, on September 17, 2024, commissioner-cum-secretary Health and Family Welfare department rejected the application for VRS on the grounds of larger public interest, citing a critical shortage of faculty in government medical colleges.

Dr Mishra filed in the HC a petition challenging the rejection of her application. She contended that progressive vision loss and cardiac issues make it impossible for her to continue working effectively, hence denial of VRS on the pretext of faculty shortage is unjustified when compared to her individual right to health and well-being.

However, Justice Panigrahi observed, “The scarcity of doctors is not a mere inconvenience but a matter of grave public concern. To permit the petitioner’s retirement would set a precedent that risks unravelling the very fabric of the healthcare system.”