Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 594 (MP)

Ramgulam Rajdan v. State of M. P.

2012-06-22

S.C.SHARMA

body2012
ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court, serving as a Professor of Psychiatry, at M.G.M. Medical College, Indore, has filed this present writ petition for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry out private practice. The contention of the petitioner is that he was promoted as a Professor and was posted at M.G.M. Medical College and by an order dated 28th March, 2005, he was transferred from M.G.M. Medical College, Gwalior to ‘Mansik Arogya Shala, Gwalior (a Hospital of mental illness), Gwalior. The contention of the petitioner is that while he was serving as an Additional Director, he was not entitled to carry out private practice and later on he was transferred as Professor of Psychiatry to M.G.M. Medical College, Indore. Petitioner has further stated that the moment he was transferred to M.G.M. Medical College, Indore, he submitted an application for grant of permission to carry out private practice and also informed the Government that he is not at all interested in receiving non – practising allowance. Petitioner’s grievance is that inspite of the application dated 8/8/2008, he has not been permitted to carry out private practice, whereas, most of the Professors posted at M.G.M. Medical College, Indore, have been granted permission to carry out private practice by virtue of executive instructions issued by the State Government dated 2nd September 1998. 2. A reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the State Government is that the Doctors posted in Medical Colleges are permitted to carry out private practice and those Doctors who are not doing private practice are entitled for non–practising allowance. It has been stated that the petitioner is being paid non–practising allowance. The State Government has placed heavy reliance upon the circular dated 13th October 2005, which provides for submission of option for private practice/non-practising allowance and the stand of the State Government is that the aforesaid Circular provide for an option and the same was to be submitted by a Doctor within a period of 3 months from the date of issuance of the aforesaid circular and as the petitioner has not opted in time to carry out private practice, the question of grant of permission to the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, does not arise and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 4. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is posted as Professor / Head of the Department (Psychiatry) of M.G.M. Medical College, Indore. It is also an admitted fact that the Doctors posted in Medical Colleges are permitted to carry out private practice and those Doctors who are not carrying out private practice are being paid non-practising allowance. 5. Learned Government Advocate has not disputed the aforesaid fact. The State Government has placed heavy reliance upon the circular dated 13th October 2005 and the contention is that the petitioner has not given an option to carry out private practice in time therefore, the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 6. This Court has carefully gone through the Circular dated 13th October 2005 and the same makes it very clear that those Doctors (Teachers) posted in Medical Colleges were given an option by the State Government to opt for private practice in lieu of non practicing allowance. The aforesaid Circular was issued on 13th October 2005 and the petitioner at the relevant point of time was not at all posted at M.G.M. Medical College, Indore. At the relevant point of time, he was posted as Asstt. Director, Mansik Arogya Shala, Gwalior and, therefore, as he was not posted at M.G.M. Medical College, Indore, the question of giving an option by the petitioner, at that particular stage, does not arise. The moment he was posted at M.G.M. Medical College, Indore, he submitted an application for grant of permission to carry out private practice and the same has been rejected on a technical ground that it was not submitted in time. 7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the action of the respondents in denying the permission to carry out private practice is, in fact, arbitrary in nature, in view of the fact that identically placed persons have been granted permission to carry out private practice in lieu of non–practising allowance. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass necessary orders for grant of permission to the petitioner to carry out private practice as the petitioner has already submitted his option at the time he was posted at M.G.M. Medical College, Indore i.e., on 8/8/2008. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass necessary orders for grant of permission to the petitioner to carry out private practice as the petitioner has already submitted his option at the time he was posted at M.G.M. Medical College, Indore i.e., on 8/8/2008. It is noteworthy to mention that the petitioner has also declined to accept the non–practising allowance and, therefore, the petitioner’s application will not be turned down on the hypertechnical ground that it was not submitted in time by the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise of passing an order be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. No order as to costs.