Original Application Nos. 2091 of 2011 & 2322 of 2011. Case: 1. Dr. Gajendra Prasad Sinha S/o Jagnatha Sinha, 2. Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh S/o Chotey Lal Vs Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Original Application Nos. 2091 of 2011 & 2322 of 2011 |
| Judges | V. K. Bali (Chairman) & Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda (Accountant Member) |
| Issue | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19; Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 |
| Judgement Date | July 11, 2011 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
V. K. Bali (Chairman), (Principal Bench New Delhi)
-
We take in hand for disposal two connected Original Applications bearing number 2091 of 2011 and 2322 of 2011 filed by Dr. Gajendra Prasad Sinha and Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh respectively, by this common judgment, as the questions of facts and law are absolutely identical in both matters. Shri Sagar Saxena, learned counsel representing the applicants in both OAs, also suggests likewise.
-
Applicants in both OAs are General Duty Medical Officers (hereinafter to be referred as GDMOs). Their grievance is that whereas, their counterparts in the streams of teaching specialists, non-teaching specialists and public health specialists would retire at the age of 65/62 years, the applicants who are in the stream of general duty doctors are made to retire at the age of 60 years. This, according to the applicants, would be hostile discrimination against them who are equally situate with their counterparts engaged in medical streams as mentioned above. Having noted the primary or in fact the only grievance of the applicants as noted above, the facts would require necessary mention, even though in brevity. The same as projected in the OAs and extracted from OA No.2091/2011 in the matter of Dr. Gajendra Prasad Sinha, reveal that the Central Health Service (CHS) was constituted by the Government of India in the year 1960. The service was declared as a Class-I service in 1973. In 1982, the service was restructured by dividing it into four categories, namely, General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs), Teaching Specialists, Non-teaching Specialists and Public Health Specialists. It is the case of the applicant that after initial recruitment into their respective cadres, there are separate channels of promotion up to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) level, and beyond that, for promotion to Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) level, all the four cadres are treated as feeder cadres, and, therefore, the four tributaries merge at HAG level and thereafter flow in the same direction. The highest post in the CHS is that of Director General, which, it is pleaded, can be manned by any doctor belonging to the four categories mentioned above. The age of retirement at the inception at the time of restructuring of the service across the board was 60 years. The applicant came to be appointed as GDMO earlier on contract basis, but was later regularised through UPSC. He was promoted as Senior Duty Medical Officer as also Chief Medical Officer and Chief Medical Officer (NFSG). In the year 2006, the Government of India felt concerned with the high attrition rate of government doctors through voluntary retirement, resignation and foreign assignments, and in order to diagnose the cause and to suggest the remedy for this problem, a high powered committee was constituted. The committee was to examine as to why an unusual number of government doctors were leaving their jobs to take employment in foreign countries/domestic private sector, and to suggest measures to prevent the abnormal exodus in government cadres. The committee was headed by Shri Javed A. Chowdhury, former Union Health Secretary, along with others. In May, 2006, after an in-depth analysis of the situation, the committee submitted its report, wherein various nuances and intricacies of the problem were discussed, including their causes. Number of recommendations were thus made. One of the recommendations was that the retirement age of CHS doctors be enhanced from 60 to 62 years. The Government considered the report of the committee and issued notification dated 16.11.2006 vide which the age of superannuation of doctors belonging to categories other than to which the applicants belong was fixed at 62 years. The benefit of enhancement in the age of superannuation was not extended to the category to which the applicants belong. Aggrieved, some doctors...
To continue reading
Request your trial