Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Atula Mathur vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 18 December, 2020
1
O.A 988/2020
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA/100/988/2020
MA/100/2712/2020, MA/100/2711/2020
MA/100/1082/2020, MA/100/1607/2020
MA/100/2596/2020 and MA 2209/2020
This the 18th day of December, 2020
(Through Video Conferencing)
HON'BLE MR. PRADEEP KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
1. Mrs. Atula Mathur
Aged about 59 years old
Wife of K. M. Mathur
R/o. Flat No. 2, Sector 6,
Plot No. 34,
Vidhya Sagar Apartments,
Dwarka, New Delhi
Currently employed as Tel. Opt-cum-
Receptionist At MCI
2. Mrs. Saroj Bhasin
Aged about 59 years old
Wife of Sh. Mukesh Bhasin
R/o. 83, Nagin Lake Apartment, Paschim Vihar,
Outer Ring Road,
New Delhi - 110 087.
Currently employed as Private Secretary
at MCI
3. Mr. Bonny Harison
Aged about 55 years old
Son of Late Sh. Chhotey Lal
R/o. B-93, DDA Flats, Phase-II,
Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi-110016
Currently employed as Section Officerat MCI
4. Mr. Lakhan Singh
Aged about 53 years old
Son of Sh. Mangli Prasad
R/o. D-157, ShyamVihar, Phase-I,
Road No. 6,
Gali No. 8, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043
2
O.A 988/2020
Currently employed as Assistant at MCI
5. Mr. Rajiv Kumar
Aged about 53 years old
Son of Late Sh. Inder Lal
R/o. 368, Hewo Apartment-II,
GH 41 Sector - 56,
Gurugram
Currently employed as Assistant
Secretary at MCI
6. Mr. Anupam Dhua
Aged about 52 years old
Son of Sh. A. G. Dhua
R/o. 303, Dakshinayan Apartments,
Plot No. 19,
Sector-4 Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 078.
Currently employed as Computer Programmer
at MCI
7. Mrs. Maheshwari
Aged about 52 years old
Wife of Late ShAbani Kumar Dash
R/o. Flat No. 438, Green View Apartment,
Pocket-2, Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi
Currently employed as HindiTranslator at MCI
8. Mr. Raj Kumar Jain
Aged about 52 years old
Son of Sh. M. P. Jain
R/o. B-272/34, Street No. 4, Subhash Vihar,
Delhi-110 053
Currently employed as Section Officer at MCI
9. Mr. Anil Kumar
Aged about 50 years old
Son of Sh. Bhagwan Singh
R/o. RZ-20C/12 A, Gali No. 2, Main Sagar Pur,
Delhi-110 046
Currently employed as Section Officerat MCI
10.Mr. Bijender Singh
Aged about 49 years old
Son of Late Sh. Ved Ram
R/o A-1/375, Gali No.19, Gamri,
New Delhi-110053
Currently employed as Section Officer at MCI
3
O.A 988/2020
11.Mr. Raj Kumar Dogra,
Aged about 49 years old
Son of late Sh. Des Raj Dogra,
R/o F-97, ShyamVihar, Deendarpur,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043
Currently employed as Assistant at MCI
12.Mr. Ravi Bhargava,
Aged about 49 years old
Son of Sh. Y.B.Bhargava,
R/o 52A, West Guru Angad Nagar,
Mohan Park, Gali No.3,
New Delhi-110092
Currently employed as Private Secretary at MCI
13.Mr. Shikhar Ranjan,
Aged about 49 years old
Son of late Sh. L.N.Sinha,
R/o C-129, Siddharth Kunj Apartments,
Plot No.17, Sector-7, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075
Currently employed as Law Officer at MCI
... Applicants
(By Advocate: Sh. Nalin Kohli, senior counsel with
Sh. Asif Ahmed)
VERSUS
1. Board of Governors,
Through Chairman
In supersession of Medical Council of India,
Sector-8, Pocket-14, Dwarka Phase-1,
New Delhi-110077.
2. Union of India,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Through Secretary,
Nirman Bhawan,
Near Udyog Bhawan Metro Station,
Maulana Azad Rd., New Delhi-110011.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Vikas Singh, senior counsel with
Sh. T.Singhdev for respondent No.1 and
Sh. Hanu Bhaskar for respondent No.2)
4
O.A 988/2020
ORDER (ORAL)
Applicants herein are serving in the erstwhile Medical Council of India, which has now been constituted as National Medical Commission. The applicants (total 13 in number) are aggrieved that the pay fixation given to them over years, has been objected to by the Audit Department and the respondents have decided to refix their pay. This decision was impugned in this OA No.988/2020. Subsequently, in follow up of that decision, respondents have also issued revised pay fixation orders on 27.10.2020 and 28.10.2020 though making it subject to the final decision in OA No.988/2020.
2. The applicant also preferred MA No.1607/2020 seeking to file the OA jointly.
The applicants also preferred MA-2209/2020 seeking to substitute MCI with NMC, which is the successor body. This MA was allowed on 3.11.2020.
3. Applicants have also preferred another MA No.2712/2020 to bring on record legal heirs of applicant No.1, who has unfortunately died on 22.8.2020 while the OA was still pending adjudication. There has been 14 days delay in filing this MA No.2712/2020, and MA- 5 O.A 988/2020 2711/2020 has also been filed seeking condonation of delay in MA-2712/2020.
4. The respondents have opposed MA-1607/2020 seeking to file joint application, pleading that the 13 applicants are working at different levels in the organisation starting from Group-D to much higher levels and policy directives in respect of pay fixation as applicable to them are different. Accordingly, OA is not maintainable, in the form as has been filed.
5. Matter has been heard.Applicantsare represented by Sh. Nalin Kohli, learned senior counsel with Sh. Asif Ahmed. Respondent No.1 is represented by Sh. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel with Sh. T.Singhdev, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel represented respondent No.2.
6. For the reasons stated therein, MA No.2711/2020 seeking condonation of delay is allowed. MA No.2712/2020, to bring the legal heirs of applicant No.1 on record, is also allowed. Applicants may file amended memo of parties.
7. Applicants have also preferred MA No.2596/2020 seeking to stay the pay fixation orders issued by order dated 27.10.2020 and 28.10.2020. It is noted that 6 O.A 988/2020 thesetwo pay fixation orders were not forming part of the original OA. It is also noted that they had been issued in follow up of the decision by the Board of Governors of the erstwhile Medical Council of India and that decision of MCI was sought to be stayed in the initial OA.
The applicants also rely on a judgement in Rafique Masih (White washer) to plead that recoveries are not admissible.
8. MA No.1607/2020 for joining together is disallowed for the reasons that applicants belong to different levels in the organisation and policy directives for their pay fixation may be different. The applicants do not not form a cohesive group.
9. At this point, learned counsel for applicant sought permission of the Court to withdraw the OA with liberty to file a better OA for the grievance ventilated in this OA, by putting together only those applicants in each OA which form one cohesive group.
Applicant, however, pleaded that in the meanwhile, certain protection be given to them in the form that no coercive action be taken against the applicants.
10. Respondents vehemently opposed any kind of interim protection to the applicants as OA itself is not 7 O.A 988/2020 maintainable in the present form for reasons brought out in para 4 above.
11. Since joining together has been disallowed, the present OA is not maintainable in present form and is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. However, keeping in view the liberty sought for in para 9 above, further directions are in para 12 below.
12. Learned counsel for applicants seeks and are allowed three weeks time to submit better OA. In the meanwhile, respondents shall continue to pay to the applicants at pay level, which has been assessed to be correct by the respondents. However, those payments shall be subject to the final decision in the OAs, which need to be filed within the time allowed.
( Pradeep Kumar ) Member (A) /sunita/Mbt/