The state is obligated to extend the benefits derived from a judicial decision in rem to all similarly situated persons, as denying such parity violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Since the issue involved in all these applications is substantially similar, and the reliefs sought therein are identical, founded upon similar facts and circumstances, all these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

The applicants are seeking the following relief:

“To set aside Office Memorandum No.16/4(5)/2025-SUS/4671 dated 9.4.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefit flowing from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 24.08.2023 made in C.A.13502/2015 to the applicants as they are identically situated and grant the benefits as granted to the parties to the above referred litigation vide Orders dated 26.11.2024and 14.12.2024 in accordance with the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme with all consequential benefits including revised pensionary/terminal benefits with arrears of pay and pension and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper”

The Applicants are serving and retired Medical Doctors working in various capacities at the Department of Atomic Energy Hospital (DAE Hospital), a unit functioning under the General Services Organisation (GSO), Kalpakkam. The GSO is a distinct service unit of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), providing common services such as healthcare, electricity, water supply, accommodation, and other essential amenities to the Township Community. Pursuant to the recommendations of the 5th and 6th Central Pay Commissions (CPC), the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme (DACP) was introduced for Medical Doctors. Following its introduction, the Doctors of GSO submitted representations seeking extension of DACP benefits to them. However, their requests were not considered by the authorities. Meanwhile, fifteen (15) similarly placed Medical Doctors serving in GSO, Kalpakkam, filed O.A. No. 1177/2019 before this Tribunal, seeking implementation of the DACP Scheme benefits as recommended by the 6th CPC and extended to Medical Doctors in other Ministries/Departments of the Government of India. The said Original Application was allowed by order, dated 24.04.2010, which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide order dated 12.01.2011 in W.P. No. 12209/2010. The matter was thereafter carried in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 13502 of 2015, which came to be dismissed on 24.08.2023. The Hon’ble Courts, while adjudicating the issue, have consistently held that the Medical Doctors working in GSO, DAE, cannot be equated with Scientists, but are to be regarded as Medical Officers, thereby entitling them to the benefits of the DACP Scheme, as extended to all Medical Officers serving under the Central Government. In effect, the said judgments are in the nature of judgments in rem and are applicable to all Medical Doctors working in the DAE Hospital, Kalpakkam, irrespective of whether they were parties to the original proceedings or not. Subsequently, on 15.04.2024, the 2nd Respondent, being the competent authority, took a decision to implement the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of the parties to the said litigation, and consequential orders granting DACP benefits were issued on 26.11.2024 and 14.12.2024. In the meantime, the present Applicants, being similarly situated, submitted representations seeking extension of DACP benefits in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order. However, by an omnibus order, the 2nd Respondent declined to accede to their request on the untenable ground that the orders and judgments in the case of Dr. Deepak Sen & Others were confined only to the parties therein and were not intended to be extended to other serving or retired Doctors of the Department. In other words, the Respondents have erroneously treated the earlier judgment as one in personam rather than in rem. Hence, the present Original Applications.

The lear