COVID Duty by PG medicos to be considered as Bond Service: HC
Madurai: Granting relief to a doctor, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court recently held that the COVID duty performed by PG medicos should be treated as bond service. With this observation, the HC bench comprising Justice GR Swaminathan also reiterated that educational certificates cannot be retained for any reason.
Clarifying that educational certificates are not marketable commodities, the bench directed the Dean of Government Thanjavur Medical College, where the petitioner doctor pursued his postgraduation, to return the original certificates without any delay.
The petitioner joined a PG medical course as a non-service candidate and he had executed a bond undertaking to serve the Government of Tamil Nadu for a period of two years after completing the course. This bond period was later reduced to one year. He completed his PG course from Government Thanjavur Medical College in April 2022. Approaching the HC bench, he prayed for a direction upon the authorities to treat his compulsory bond period as completed, relieve him from the bonded service and return his original certificates along with the PG degree certificate.
The counsel for the petitioner doctor argued that as a student, he had rendered COVID-19 duty. Therefore, the counsel argued that the COVID duty should be treated as bond service.
While considering the matter, the HC bench referred to the HC order dated 07.12.2023 in the case of Dr.S.Kiran Kumar & Others Vs The State of Tamil Nadu & Others and the order dated 02.02.2023 in the case of Dr Jayakrishnan M.P & Others Vs The State of Tamil Nadu & Others. In these earlier orders, the Court had noted that the risk that the petitioners had undergone had to be equated with the risk of every other medical professional. Medical Dialogues had last year reported that giving relief to these five doctors who had attended COVID-19 patients during their Super-Specialty Course study, the Madras High Court bench had held that the COVID-19 service should be counted as their Compulsory Bond Period which they had been required to undergo compulsory government service after completing their course.
"I hold that the Government has to extend arm to them and adjust that particular service rendered towards the two years of bond service which they had to undergo. There is no refusal on their part to undergo the two years period but they only expect to seek adjustment of the period already spent while treating covid-19 patients," the HC bench had observed.
"Every medical professional would appreciate the service at that critical period. Appreciation should be extended not only to those, who had completed the course but also to those who were studying in Super Specialty Courses. A student, who is studying in Super Specialty Courses had also exposed, would himself or herself to the infection. Taken into consideration the specialised courses which they were undergoing and the stage of their career, they could have easily avoided that duty and sought protection on the ground that they were students. The petitioners did not avoid the call for duty," it had further noted.
Meanwhile, the Additional Government Pleader also cited the recent order dated 22.04.2024 in which the HC bench had upheld the bond service conditions. Dismissing the plea filed by three doctors, who challenged the proceedings of the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine appointing them as Assistant Surgeon based on a bond agreement under relevant rules, the HC bench had noted, that "It is natural that the Government desires to ensure that these Doctors, who have underdone Post Graduate training at a very low cost by utilizing the poor people, to serve the poor and the needy of our great nation at large and the State of Tamil Nadu in particular. The public have the right to expect the Specialists to utilize their service during their training for the benefit of the sick, poor and the need."
However, responding to this argument, the petitioner's counsel submitted at this outset that except for this solitary order, all the other orders which would run to scores are on the same line as that of last year's order that granted relief to the doctors who had attended COVID-19 patients during their Super-Specialty Course study.
The petitioner's counsel also pointed out that the First Bench of Madras HC in the order dated 16.11.2023 in W.P.No.25827 of 2023 (Dr.D.Hariharan & Others Vs The Union of India & Others) had taken the view that Covid duty should be considered as bond service. The order had said, "The number of patients treated by these Post-Graduate medical students and the amount of duty they have put in all these Government wards is no less when compared to the temporary Medical Officers who have been recruited."
Taking note of this submission, the Court observed,
"The over whelming weight of authority in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble First Bench impels me to answer the issue raised in the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. It is declared that the Covid duty performed by the petitioner shall be treated as bond service."
Observing that the petitioner's original certificates are with the Government Thanjavur Medical College, the bench reiterated,
"I have been consistently holding that one's educational certificates cannot be retained for any reason as no lien can be claimed thereon. Educational certificates are not marketable commodities within the meaning of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872."
Directing the medical college to return the original certificates, the bench stated in the order, "The fifth respondent is directed to return the petitioner's original certificates forthwith and without delay. The second respondent is directed to formally relieve the petitioner from the bonded service. This shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/madras-hc-bond-service-237628.pdf
