Recovery determination remanded where authority failed to consider reduced bond-service period and disputed service computation.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 23 July 2026 passed by the Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttarakhand, rejecting his representation against a recovery certificate issued pursuant to an MBBS bond.

The bond required him to serve for five years in remote or hilly areas of Uttarakhand after obtaining admission to the MBBS course on subsidised fees; failure to do so attracted recovery of ₹30 lakhs under the applicable revenue/public debt recovery law.

The Director General determined that the petitioner had rendered only 2 years, 10 months and 15 days of service against the required five years and directed him to deposit ₹13,85,284 with the Principal, Government Medical College, Srinagar.

The petitioner contended that Clause 7 of the Government Order dated 23 July 2008 reduced the compulsory service requirement to three years for doctors who obtained a postgraduate medical degree at their own expense.

He relied upon 281 days of service at Community Health Centre, Berinag, and further service as a DNB General Surgeon at District Hospital, Champawat, between 2020 and 2023, along with 42 days of earned casual leave.

The State contended that, under Clause 7, doctors holding an MS/MD degree and completing three years of service were required to deposit ₹15 lakhs in a lump sum, and disputed the petitioner’s assertion that he had completed three years of bonded service.

The Court applied the terms of the MBBS bond, under which subsidised-fee beneficiaries were required to serve in remote or hilly areas for the stipulated period, failing which the bonded amount could be recovered under the Public Debt Recovery Act/Revenue Recovery Act.

It also applied Clause 7 of the Government Order dated 23 July 2008, which was relied upon by the petitioner as modifying the compulsory service obligation for doctors who obtained postgraduate medical qualifications at their own expense; the State interpreted the clause as requiring such doctors to deposit ₹15 lakhs even after completing three years of service.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court found that the Director General had rejected the petitioner’s representation by calculating the shortfall against the original five-year requirement, but had failed to consider the petitioner’s specific reliance on Clause 7 of the Government Order dated 23 July 2008.

Since the legal effect of Clause 7 was directly relevant to the duration and financial consequences of the bonded service, the recovery determination could not be sustained without examining it.

The Court also noted a factual dispute concerning the actual periods of service rendered by the petitioner, including his service at the specified health institutions and the relevance of the leave claimed by him.

Rather than conclusively deciding those disputed questions, the Court remitted the matter to the Director General for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

The Director General was directed to reconsider Clause 7 of the Government Order dated 23 July 2008, determine the petitioner’s actual period of qualifying service, and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within six weeks.

No coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner for six weeks.

The impugned recovery determination was therefore not affirmed, and the matter was left open for fresh decision by the competent authority.