Delhi High Court
Dr. Amitabh Misra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 May, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, V.K.Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on 30.05.2012
+ W.P.(C) 3336/2012
DR. AMITABH MISRA & ORS. ... Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ...Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nalin Tripathi
For the Respondent : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.3057/2011 whereby their claim for benefits under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme (DACP) in accordance with the Government of India Resolution No.1/1/2008-IC dated 29.08.2008 and certain other office memoranda was rejected.
2. The petitioners are doctors and they are working as Medical Officers in different Institutes under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The petitioners sought the benefit of the said Government of India Resolution dated W.P(C) 3336/2012 Page 1 of 5 29.08.2008 whereby the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme was available for doctors working in the Central Government. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the Office Memorandum dated 29.10.2008 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. That OM, however, would be of no help to the petitioners because from the language in the said OM itself, it is clear that scheme of DACP (Dynamic Assured Career Progression) upto SAG level (Grade Pay of Rs.10000/- in Pay Band-4, Rs.37400-67000) was extended to all Medical/Dental doctors in the Central Government, whether belonging to Organized Service or holding Isolated Posts. Admittedly, the petitioners are not medical doctors in the Central Government, therefore, the said Office Memorandum dated 29.10.2008 would be of no help to them.
3. On the contrary, we find that the Indian Council of Agricultural Research is actually a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It has its own set of bye-laws. Bye-law 30(a) is relevant for our purpose and the same reads as under:-
"30 (a) Except in regard to matters for which specific provisions has been made in the Rules, Bye-Laws, Regulations or Orders made or issued by the Society, the service and financial Rules framed by the Government of India and such other rules and orders issued by the Government of India from time to time, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Society in regard to matters containing their service conditions."W.P(C) 3336/2012 Page 2 of 5
4. All that the said bye-law indicates is that rules and orders of the Government of India for its employees would apply to the employees of ICAR, mutatis mutandis but, that would be only in cases where there are no specific provisions in the rules, bye-laws, regulations or orders made by the ICAR. Thus, if there is any specific provision made by the ICAR in any of its rules, bye-laws, regulations or orders on the same subject pertaining to rules and orders of the Government of India, it would be the former which would apply and not the latter. There is no doubt that insofar as the doctors working in the Central Government are concerned, the DACP Scheme has been extended to them. The only thing to be seen is whether that scheme has been adopted by the ICAR or not. In this connection, we may refer to the OM dated 03.10.2008, which has been issued by the ICAR. The relevant portion of the said OM reads as under:-
"Insofar as ICAR as a whole is concerned, the revised scales of pay as incorporated in Section 1 and II of Part „A‟ of the First Schedule to the Rules ibid alone may be adopted. ........"
5. It is immediately clear that insofar as the ICAR as a whole is concerned, what has been adopted is only the revised scales of pay as incorporated in Sections (I) and (II) of Part „A‟ of the First Schedule to the Rules. The word "alone" which has been used in the above extracted portion is of a great significance. It implies that only the revised scales of pay have been adopted and nothing else. The DACP W.P(C) 3336/2012 Page 3 of 5 scheme has been provided in Sections (I) and (II) of part „A‟. But, the ICAR has only chosen to adopt the revised pay scales by the use of the word "alone" in the above extracted portion of the said OM dated 03.10.2008. This clearly means that the ICAR have thought it fit not to adopt the DACP Scheme insofar as its medical officers/technical employees are concerned.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners had sought to place reliance on a decision of the High Court of judicature of Madras in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Dr. Deepak Sen & Ors.: W.P.(C) No.12209/2010 dated 12.01.2011. However, that case is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as it pertains to doctors in the Department of Atomic Energy where the department itself had implemented and adopted the DACP scheme. In the present case, we have noted that the ICAR has not adopted the DACP Scheme and it is also not a Department of the Central Government but an autonomous society registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860.
7. It may also be pointed out that there is, perhaps, a reason as to why the ICAR did not adopt the DACP Scheme because the ICAR had implemented a time bound promotion scheme whereunder a five yearly assessment promotion is done from one grade to the next higher grade or advanced increments are granted to the technical employees. It is perhaps because of the existence of this time bound promotion scheme that the ICAR thought it fit not to adopt the DACP scheme of W.P(C) 3336/2012 Page 4 of 5 the Central Government. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the ICAR has consciously adopted only the revised scales of pay and has not adopted the DACP Scheme which also fell within Sections (I) and (II) of Part „A‟ of the First Schedule to the said rules, the petitioners can have no claim to benefits under the said DACP Scheme.
8. As a result of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits under the DACP Scheme which is available for doctors in the Central Government. The Tribunal has also arrived at this very conclusion. Consequently, the writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed with no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J V.K. JAIN, J MAY 30, 2012 rb W.P(C) 3336/2012 Page 5 of 5