Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2275
High Court of Delhi
S. RAVINDRA BHAT & VIPIN SANGHI, JJ.
Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sahukar
Versus
Union of India
W.P.(C). No. 2780 of 2011
Decided on: 14-10-2014
For the Petitioner:Rekha Palli, Punam Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Sanjay Jain, ASG along with Amit Chaddha, Ruchi Jain, Nor Anand, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of DACP to Veterinary Officers, despite the recommendations of the Fifth and Sixth CPC for complete parity with GDMOs and Dental Doctors, was discriminatory and violated their Right to Equality under Art. 14.
Headnote:
DACP - Veterinary Officers - Fifth and Sixth CPC - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the denial of Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) to Veterinary Officers, claiming complete parity with General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs) and Dental Doctors in terms of pay scales and career prospects. The CAT rejected the claim, holding that the Fifth and Sixth CPC did not recommend DACP for Veterinary Officers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Fifth and Sixth CPC recommended complete parity between Veterinary Officers and GDMOs and Dental Doctors in terms of pay scales and career prospects. It held that the denial of DACP to Veterinary Officers was discriminatory and violated their Right to Equality under Art. 14.
Issues: The main issue was whether Veterinary Officers were entitled to the DACP mechanism based on the recommendations of the Fifth and Sixth CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Fifth and Sixth CPC recommended complete parity for Veterinary Officers with GDMOs and Dental Doctors, and the denial of DACP to Veterinary Officers was discriminatory and violated their Right to Equality under Art. 14.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders of the CAT and directed the respondents to ensure that the DACP is granted to Veterinary Officers on the basis of the CPC’s recommendations' implementation to GDMOs and Dental Doctors from the date the latter category (Dental Doctors) were given that benefit.
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The petitioner, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questions orders dated 09.09.2009 and 05.05.2010 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter “the CAT”), in O.A. No. 242/2009 and R.A. No. 120/2010 (in O.A. No. 242/2009). The CAT rejected his claim for application of the Dynamic Assured Career Progression mechanism (hereafter “DACP”) to Veterinary Officers on the basis that the Central Pay Commission (hereafter “CPC”) recommended the same for only General Duty Medical Officers (hereafter “GDMOs”) and Dental Doctors.
2. The facts surrounding the present writ are that the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (hereafter "UOI") introduced a time bound promotion scheme for its doctors including various cadres of the Central Health Services (hereafter “CHS”). This was termed as the DACP by the Fifth Central Pay Commission (hereafter referred to as “Fifth CPC”) with certain changes in the periodicity of promotion. The Fifth CPC recommended the application of the DACP to the officers of the CHS. It also recommended that there should be complete parity between Veterinary Officers, and GDMOs and Dental Doctors in terms of pay scales and career prospects.
3. Through a Notification dated 30.09.1997, the UOI accepted the Fifth CPC recommendations and granted parity of pay scales at the entry level of Veterinary Officers. In tune with the recommendations, the UOI also sanctioned Non-Practising Allowance at 25% of basic pay at par with GDMOs and Dental Doctors to Veterinary Officers through Memo dated 15.04.1998/04.05.1999. The UOI extended the benefit of the DACP, by prescribing parameters to govern promotions of various cadres of ISM&H doctors as available to GDMOs at that time, promotions of various grades of officers of the CHS, and promotions of Dental Doctors, based on principles of parity with GDMOs, through Memos dated 25.01.1999, 05.04.2002 and 25.08.2006 respectively. However, complete parity of pay scales, promotions and the benefits which were allowed to these doctors on implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth CPC, were not extended to Veterinary Officers.
4. The denial of complete parity in terms of pay scales and time bound promotions to Veterinary Officers was brought to the notice of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (hereafter referred to as “Sixth CPC”) by the Association of Veterinary Officers. The Sixth CPC reiterated the complete parity principle endorsed by the Fifth CPC as justified and recommended its continuation without any limitation.
5. The Government accepted the recommendations of the Sixth CPC vide Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 in Part-B. Meanwhile the extension of the DACP for all medical and dental doctors up to the Senior Administrative Grade received Presidential sanction. Veterinary Officers were again denied the extension of the mechanism. The Administrative Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries agreed to extend the benefits of time bound promotions under the DACP to Veterinary Officers and sought concurrence from the Ministry of Finance - Department of Expenditure for the same, which was turned down by the latter through Memos dated 11.02.2009 and 21.10.2009. The Ministry of Finance noted that unlike for Dental Doctors, the Fifth CPC did not specifically recommend the extension of the DACP to Veterinary Officers.
6. A member of the Veterinary Officers Association filed an RTI application dated 05.04.2010 asking for the relevant portion of the Fifth CPC Report which specifically recommended extension of the DACP to Dental Doctors. The reply to the RTI application by letter dated 10.05.2010 accepted that no such specific recommendation was made by the Fifth CPC. The petitioner accordingly filed O.A. No. 242/2009. The CAT, by its impugned order, dismissed the application holding that the Fifth CPC specifically recommended the DACP to Medical and Dental Doctors only, which was accepted by
