Bombay High Court

VAISHALI KAILASRAO JAYBHAYEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court affirmed the earlier judgment that the challenged clauses of the Government Resolution are valid and disposed of the petitions.

Summary

The petitioners, who are doctors employed in government and semi‑government hospitals, challenged clauses 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.7 of a Government Resolution dated 7 August 2012 that prohibited them from private practice and made the receipt of a non‑practicing allowance compulsory. The High Court noted that the same issue had already been decided in Writ Petition No. 6549/2026, where the court upheld the validity of those clauses. An SLP (C) No. 28560/2026 is pending before the Supreme Court challenging that earlier judgment. The parties agreed to abide by the forthcoming Supreme Court order, and the Court, finding no fresh ground for review, disposed of the present writ petitions, leaving the interim arrangement in force until the apex court decides.

Issues considered

Whether clauses 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.7 of the 7‑August‑2012 Government Resolution prohibiting private practice for government doctors are constitutionally valid.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief pending the decision in SLP (C) No. 28560/2026.

Subjects

government doctors
private practice prohibition
non‑practicing allowance
government resolution
constitutional validity
writ petition
interim arrangement

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42350-DB


                                                 1              901-wp 8286-2019+.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 8286 OF 2019

                 Dr. Asish Uttamrao Rathod And Others                      .. Petitioners

                        Versus

                 The State Of Maharashtra And Others                       .. Respondents

                                              AND
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 11902 OF 2019

                 Dr. Ajay Satwajirao Lokade                                .. Petitioner

                        Versus

                 The State Of Maharashtra And Others                       .. Respondents

                                              AND
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 9964 OF 2021

                 Dr. Vaishali Kailasrao Jaybhaye                           .. Petitioner

                        Versus

                 The State Of Maharashtra And Others                       .. Respondents

                 Mr. Vivek U. Rathod, Advocate for Petitioners.
                 Mr. P. S. Patil, P. K. Lakhotiya and Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP’s for
                 Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in respective matters.

                                         CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                                 JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
                                          DATE       :   11th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

                 PER COURT :-

                 1.     Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned
                              2                901-wp 8286-2019+.odt


A.G.P. for the respondents-State.


2.    A challenge in these petitions is to clauses 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5

and 4.7 of Government Resolution dated 07.08.2012. By way of

said resolution, the Doctors/Medical Officers working in the

Government/Semi Government/Local Self Government Hospitals

are not allowed to have private practice and instead it is made

compulsory to accept non practicing allowance. This Court has

already dealt with the said issue in Writ Petition No. 6549/2026

alongwith   other   connected       matters   vide    judgment         dated

30.07.2026. The issue is thus already answered by this Court. The

present petitions are covered by the judgment passed in Writ

Petition No. 6549/2026. This Court has already considered the

said Government Resolution and held those clauses to be valid. It

is reported that now SLP is filed challenging the said common

judgment and order bearing SLP (C) No. 28560/2026.


3.    Considering above, this Court finds that, the present

petitions can be disposed of. The parties agreed that they will be

governed by the judgment and order that would be passed in SLP.

Since there is already interim arrangement made and is continued

since long, the same shall continue till the arrangement is
                                  3             901-wp 8286-2019+.odt


continued by the Hon’ble Apex Court.


4.       With this, the writ petitions stand disposed of.



( JITENDRA JAIN, J.)                          ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )



P.S.B.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…