PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.DR. P.P.C. RAVANI & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DR. AKHILESH CHANDRA AGRAWALDR. AKHILESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & O
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/02/1998
BENCH:
K. VENKATASWAMI, A.P. MISRA
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14573 OF 1996
JUDGMENTK. VENKATASWAMI, J.
These two appeals by special leave arise out of one order of the Central; Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, dated 23.196 made in O.A. No. 1744 of 1993.
Civil Appeal No. 1477/96 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.
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 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 regularities, 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 t he 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. 1228/86 holding that orders for regularisation of appointments be issued and that it will take effect from the respective dated 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. 8076/88. The Contempt Petition was ultimately disposed of by this Court on 29.10.81 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 From
1.1.1973 or the date of his first
initial appointment in the service
(though as ad hoc Group ‘B’
doctor), whichever is later.
2. In order to ensure that there is
no disturbance of the seniority and
the Promotional prospects the
regularly recruited doctors, there
will be separate seniority list in
respect of the appellants and their
promotions (about which directions
are given below) shall be regulated
by such separate seniority list and
such promotions will only
supernumerary posts to be created
as mentioned.
3.(a) Each of the appellants will
be eligible for promotion to the
post of Senior Medical Officer or
Chief Medical Officer or further
promotional posts therefrom taking
into account his seniority in the
separate seniority list which is to
be drawn up as indicated above.
(b) The promotion of any of the
appellants to the post of senior
Medical Officer, Chief Medical
Officer and further promotional
post therefrom will be on par with
the promotion of the regularly
recruited doctor who is immediately
junior to the concerned appellant
on the basis of their respective
dated of appointment. In other
words, if a regularly recruited
doctor, on the basis of the
seniority list maintained by the
Department, gets a promotion as
Senior Medical Officer or Chief
Medical Officer or further
promotion thereafter, then the
appellant who was appellant who was
appointed immediately earlier to
him will also be promoted as a
Senior Medical Officer or Chief
Medical Officer or further
promotion therefrom (as the case
may be) with effect from the same
date.
4. In order that there may be no
conflict or any possibilities of
reversion, the post of which
appellant will be promoted (whether
as Senior Medical Officer or Chief
Medical Officer or on further
promotion therefrom) should only be
to a supernumerary post. Such
number of supernumerary posts
should be created by the Government
as may b e necessary to give effect
to the above directions. No
promotion will be given to any of
the appellants in the existing
vacancies which will go only to the
regularly appointed doctors.
5. The appellants hereby agree to
give up all monetary claims on
account of revision of scales,
regularisation or promotion to
which they would be entitled till
31.10.1991.
6. Apart from the appellants there
are certain doctors who fall in the
same category but who had not filed
writ petitions before the High
Court. They have filed directly
writ petitions before this Court
bearing Nos. 2620-2659/1985 and
intervention applications. The
intervention applications are
allowed and rule nisi is issued in
the writ petitioners have to be
granted the same relief as the
appellants. It is made clear that
all these applicants and
petitioners will be entitled to the
same relief as the appellants for
all purposes of seniority and
promotion. All monetary claims on
account of revision of scales,
regularisation or promotion till
31.10.1991 are given up by these
applicants and petitioners as
well."
On the basis of the order of this Court, the Union of India issued orders on 11.12.91 stating that Senior Medical Officer will be promoted as Chief Medical Officer on completion of six years of regular service as Senior Medical Officer or on completion of ten years of combined regular service as Medical Officers and Senior Medical Officers of which at least two years would be as Senior Medical Officers on the Basis of seniority-cum-fitness subject to their securing Bench Mar of "good". On 18.12.92 the Union of India issued a further order stating that since the Officers on promotion were adjusted against combined sanctioned strength, no supernumerary post was necessary. In these circumstances, it appears that the Deputy Director, CGHS, Kanpur, sought a clarification from the Director General of Health Services on 27.8.83. In reply to that, the letter impugned before the Tribunal came to be issued.
The Tribunal accepting the contentions of the respondents herein (directly recruited doctors) held that the impugned letter was in violation of the directions given by this Court and, therefore, the same was illegal and not sustainable in law. The Tribunal was of the view that the fact that the regularised doctors were to be accommodated in the supernumerary posts to be created, will show that they will not carry with them the administrative powers. The Tribunal observed as follows :-
"The result, therefore, is that
when a regular post of Chief
Medical Officer falls vacant, it
shall go to the directly recruited
medical officer. Naturally, such
post of Chief Medical Officers will
carry the administrative powers as
well. Since, no prejudice is to be
caused to the regularised medical
officer, he shall be posted as
Chief Medical Officer but only on
super-numerary post. In our
opinion, such super-numerary post
which is different than the regular
post, will not carry with it the
administrative powers."
This view of the Tribunal, according to the appellants, in C.A.No. 14573.96 is prejudicial to their interest and by reason of the order of Tribunal they are to take orders from their juniors, which was not the spirit or intent of the order of this court. According to them the letter impugned before the Tribunal was quite in accordance with the directions given by this Court and the constriction put on that letter by the Tribunal was wrong.
From the narration of the facts, it is evident that the appellants, who are to be considered as regularised doctors, have consistently succeeded before this Court at every stage in establishing their seniority. As noticed above, this Court while giving directions in unmistakable terms has stated that the regularised doctors will take their seniority on and from 1.1.73 or the date of their first initial appointment in the service (though as ad hoc Group ‘B’ doctors), whichever is later. In view of this direction read with direction 2 and 3 (supra), which was arrived at after a prolonged discussion, the view taken by the Tribunal that the impugned letter dated 17.10.93 was in violation of the directions given by this Court is totally uncalled for. Likewise, the view taken by the Tribunal that those appointed in the supernumerary posts cannot claim the administrative powers as that will go only with regular posts is also wrong. The Tribunal treated supernumerary posts as different one from the regular posts. This view of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in view of a decision of this Court in D.K.Reddy & Anr. This Court while considering a similar question repelled an argument similar to the view taken by the Tribunal by observing as follows :-
"As a result of such an exercise,
if need arose appellant no. 1
could be treated to have been
holding supernumerary post in
Junior Time Scale Grade of Group
‘A’ posts and in all other
promotional cadres. He cannot be
treated to be outside the
sanctioned strength of Posts in
Junior Time Scale grade of Group
‘A’ or other promotional posts as
contended by learned counsel for
respondents. Otherwise, the very
creation of supernumerary posts
would become otiose and
meaningless."
The two reasons given by the Tribunal to hold the impugned letter ass 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 calimed that they alone should be given such administrative powers irrespective of the seniority which was accepted by the Tribunal was right in conceding the claim of the directly recruited doctors on this aspect.
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 appeal are allowed. There will be not order as to costs.