Important Point
Letter dated 17.10.93 issued by the Deputy Director Admn. (CGHS) New Delhi to his counter part in Kanpur regarding fixation of seniority of CMO was quite in accordance with directions given by Supreme Court in CMP No. 8076/88 dated 29.10.91 and the construction put on that letter by CAT holding it to be in violation of the directions given by Supreme Court is wrong.

Headnote:CHS Rules, 1963 and 1982-Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 14573 succeeding in Supreme Court in establishing their seniority as regularised doctors-Letter of 17.10.93 issued by Deputy Director Admn. (CGHS) New Delhi to his counter part in Kanpur regarding clarification of fixation of seniority of CMO-View taken by CAT that impugned letter was in violation of directions given by Supreme Court in Contempt Petition No. 8076/88 dated 29.10.91-Whether correct? (No)-CAT treating supplementary posts as different one from the regular posts-Whether correct? (No)-Effect-Appeals allowed. (Para 7)
       Held : The two reasons given by the Tribunal to hold the impugned letter as not sustainable in law, cannot be accepted as correct one. It is not in dispute that there was no quarrel between the two groups regarding the seniority or promotion. Both sides agreed that so far as promotion and seniority are concerned, they are given in accordance with the directions of this Court, but only regarding the administrative responsibilities/powers the directly recruited doctors claimed that they alone should be given such administrative powers irrespective of the seniority which was accepted by the Tribunal. We do not think that the Tribunal was right in conceding the claim of the directly recruited doctors on this aspect. (Para 8)
       In the result, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the letter impugned before the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality. The appeals are allowed. There will be no order as to costs. (Para 9)

Judgment

K. Venkataswami, J.-These two appeals by special leave arise out of one order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, dated 23.1.96 made in O.A. No. 1744 of 1993.

2. Civil Appeal No. 14747/96 was preferred by the Union of India and Civil Appeal No. 14573/96 was filed by the aggrieved individuals against one and same order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. The subject-matter of dispute before the Tribunal related to a letter dated 17.10.93 issued by the Deputy Director Admn. (CGHS), New Delhi, to the Deputy Director, CGHS, Kanpur. The letter impugned before the Tribunal reads as follows:-

“No. A-32018/4/93/CHS. II

Directorate General of Health Services

New Delhi, dated the 12.10.93/

17.10.93

The Deputy Director,

CGHS, 117/617, Pandu Nagar,

Kanpur.

Sub: CGHS, Kanpur-Clarification regarding fixation of seniority of Chief Medical Officers-Reg.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your letter No. 2-3/90-CGHS/KNP/1876, dated the 27th August, 1993 on the subject mentioned above and to say that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to whom the case was referred, have clarified that for the purpose of interse-comparison between initially regularly appointed doctors and beneficiaries in terms of Dr. Rawani’s case judgment, precedence will be given to those who have an earlier date/ deemed date of regular appointment. The actual date of issue of orders of organisation is not relevant in these cases.

Yours faithfully,

(Lala Ram)

Deputy Director Admn. (CGHS)

Copy to:-

Additional Director, CGHS.”

4. Shortly put the facts leading to the filing of O.A. No. 1744/93 before the Tribunal are the following:-

The first appellant and the members of the second appellant were all originally appointed as ad hoc Group ‘B’ Doctors under the Central Health Services Rules, 1963 between the years 1968 to 1977. After the first year of service those doctors continued in service in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. In the year 1982 the Central Service Rules, 1982 came into force and under those Rules the posts were classified as Medical Officers, Senior Medical Officers and Chief Medical Officers. All these Medical Officers were brought under one Group, namely, Group ‘A’. Group ‘B’ was totally abolished. In spite of the appellants making repeated representations for regularisation, they could not get any response from the authorities, which made them to move the Delhi High Court in W.P. No. 1144/83 for regularisation. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. However, this Court granted leave and the appeal was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 3519/84. At the instance of Union of India, this Court by an order dated 14.7.86 gave liberty to the Government of India to request the Union Public Service Commission to conduct a special selection under Rule 8(2) of the 1982 Rules for selection/regularisation of the appellants only from their original dates of appointments. Some of the appellants, who were appointed by the Union Public Service Commission on a regular basis as fresh entrants, moved this Court in Writ Petition No. 1228/86 seeking direction from this Court that their services rendered on ad hoc basis to be counted. This Court on 9.4.87 disposed of Civil Appeal No. 3519/94 and Writ Petition No. 1228/861, holding that orders for regularisation of appointments be issued and that it will take effect from the respective dates of their original appointments. A Review Petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed by this Court on 15.9.87. In spite of this Court’s order, the Union of India did not give effect to the orders of this Court, which made the appellants to move this Court in Contempt Petition in CMP No. 8076/882. The Contempt Petition was ultimately disposed of by this Court on 29.10.91 issuing certain directions, which read as follows:-

“1. Each of the appellants will be treated as regularised in Group `A’ of the Central Health Service

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 277

Cases Referred (1)