Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Kamlesh Florence Wife Of Mr. Wilson vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 15 November, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Chandigarh, this the 15th day of November, 2012
CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J)
HONBLE MR.RANBIR SINGH , MEMBER(A)
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Ranbir Singh, Member (A)
(1) O.A. NO.1195/CH/2011
1. Kamlesh Florence wife of Mr. Wilson, Nursing Sister Grade I (File No. 354), SLR, PGI, resident of H. No. 40, type III, PGI Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
2. Kaushalaya Sharma wife of Mr. Raj Sharma, Nursing Sister Grade- I (File No. 366) Heart Command (ACC) PGI, resident of H. No. 20, Type XI H, Sector 12, PGI Campus, Chandigarh.
3. Soma Gill wife of Sh. Gurnam Singh, Nursing sister, Grade- I (File No. 466) MS Ward, PGI, resident of H. No. 460, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh.
4. Bhupinder Kaur Tiwana wife of Sh. Kulwant Singh, Sister Grade I (File No. 458), RT Ward PGI, resident of H. NO. 1021, Sector 69, Mohali (Punjab).
5. Shakun Oberoi wife of Mr. Sunil Oberoi, Nursing Sister Grade I (File No. 400) PGI, resident of H. No. 1077, Sector 10, Panchkula (Haryana)
6. Satwinder Kaur wife of Mr. Mohinder Singh, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 460), resident of House No. HM-16, Phase I, Mohali (Punjab)
7. Nutan James wife of Mr. Jasper James, Nursing sister Grade-I (File No. 461) CTVS Ward, PGI resident of House No. 9, Type IV, PGI Campus, Chandigarh.
8. Karolien Masih wife of Mr. Mubarak Masih, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 361), EMG WD-H PGI, resident of H. NO. 13-D/38, PGI Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
9. Esther Augustine wife of Mr. V.K. Augustine, Nursing Sister Grade-I,(File No. 417), AEC OT(Main), PGI, resident of H. No. 177, Shivalik Vihar, Naya Gaon (Punjab)
10. Veena Bhatti wife of Mr. Williams, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 479), Eye Emg. PGI, resident of H. No. 1564, Shivalik Vihar, Naya Gaon (Punjab).
11. Madhu Bala wife of Sh. Om Parkash, Nursing sister Grade I (File No. 416), Advance Trauma Centre, Neuro Ward, PGI, resident of H. No,.53, Village Chandi Kotla, PO Chandimandir, District Panchkula (Haryana )
12. Agnus G.M. wife of Sh. Noel Richart, Nursing sister Grade-I (File No. 399) Emg. OPD, PGI, resident of H. NO. 510, Ward No. 2, Opposite CNI Church, Chandigarh Road, Kharar, District Mohali.
13. Amrita Edwin wife of Mr. C.J. Edwin, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No., 356), NSG Office, PGI resident of H. NO. 1391, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh.
14. Salamti N. Masih wife of Mr. Nathaniel Masih Nursing Sister Grade- I (File No. 475), Paed, OT, PGI, resident of H. No. 20 Type C, PGI Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
15. Gurmail Kaur Brar Wife of Late S. Balwinder Singh, Nursing Sister Grade I (File No. 474) M.O.T. RR. PGI, H. NO. 3375, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh.
16. Sirria Rajpoor wife of Prof. Arunanshu Bahera, Nursing sister Grade-I (File No. 472), Med. Micro Biology Deptt. Resident of H. No. 8H-7, PGI Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
17. Ram Kumari daughter of late Sh. Sant Ram, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 405), APC Ward, resident of H. NO. NFH-8, PGI Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
18. Usha Francis wife of late Mr. Austin, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 406), CLR, PGI, resident of H. No. 15, Type IV, Sector 12, PGI Campus, Chandigarh.
19. Saroj Bala wife of Mr. Sunil Pahwa, Nursing Sister Grade I (File No. 509), Main ICU, PGI, resident of H. No. 733, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.
20. Tejpal Kaur wife of Mr. Avtar Singh, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 483), Ph. Surg, Ward, PGI, resident of H. No. 3125, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh.
21. Veena Dass wife of Mr. A. Dass, Nursing sister Grade-I (File No. 397), PUT 5th A, PGI, resident of H. No. 28, Type 4 Sector 12, Chandigarh.
22. Jasmeet Thakur wife of Mr. Varinder Thakur, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 409), RT & OT, PGI, resident of H. No. 858, Shivalik society, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.
23. Olive Chand wife of Mr. Raj Kumar, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 414),Heart Command, PGI, resident of H. No.1, Type IV, PGI Campus, Chandigarh.
24. Jaswinder Kashyap wife of Mr. Ashok Kashyap, Nursing Sister Grade I (File No. 467), Staff Clinic, PGI, resident of H. No. HL 298, Phase II, Mohali.
25. Usha Kiran wife of Samuel J.Sohni, Nursing sister Grade-I (File No. 473), X-Ray Department, PGI, resident of H. NO. 9. Type 11-H, PGI Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
26. Salina K. Chawla wife of Mr. M. Singh, Nursing sister Grade-I (File No. 408) AEC Minor OT, resident of H. No. 572, DMC, Chandigarh.
27. Saroj Bala wife of Sh. Jagdish Gupta, Nursing Sister Grade- I (File No. 375), NSICU 6th BAPC, PGI, resident of H. No. 78/15, Panchkula (HR).
28. Shakuntla B. Masih wife of Mr. Kewal Masih, Nursing sister Grade I (File No. 485), Emg. OPD, H. NO. 38 T, III, PGI Colony, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
29. Savita Gulati wife of Mr. Raman, Nursing sister Grade I (File No. 357), Main OT, PGI, resident of H. No. 19, Type III, PGI Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
30. Prem Arora, Nursing Sister Grade I (File No. 413), Main OT, PGI, resident of H. No. 3119,Sector 24-D, Chandigarh.
31. Krishna Saini wife of Sh. Sohan Lal, Nursing sister Grade-I (File No. 358), M TY Wd., PGI resident of H. No. 44, GHS 94, PGI Enclave, Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana)
32. Pushpa Gupta wife of S. Sudarshan, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No.368), Bone Marrow Transplant, PGI, resident of H. No. 3120, Sector 24-D, Chandigarh.
33. Agus A. Nath wife of Mr. Dilbag Masih Sahota, Nursing sister Grade-I (File No. 484), Main ICU, PGI resident of H. No. 38, Type IV, PGI Campus, Chandigarh.
34. Sarita Malik wife of Mr. Ravi Malik, Nursing sister Grade-I (File No. 376), Kidney Unit, resident of H. No. 2804, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh.
.Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh through its Director.
3. Chief Nursing Superintendent, Office of chief Nursing Officer, Nehru Hospital, PGIMER, Chandigarh.
4. Medical Superintendent, Nehru Hospital, PGIMER, Chandigarh.
5. Rattan Kaur, Nursing sister Grade I (File No. 785)
6. Usha Rattan, Nursing Sister Grade I (File No. 802)
7. Dalvinder Kaur, Nursing Sister Grade I (File No. 805)
8. Kiran Chanda, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 843).
9. Neelam Kumari, Nursing Sister Grade I (File No. 845)
10. Stella, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 847)
11. Kanwaljit Kaur, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 884)
12. Anzleena, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No.902)
13. Pushpa Nagra, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 911 )
14. Kiran Bala, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No.912)
15. Uma Devi, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No.941)
16. Sonia, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 938)
17. Reeta Rani, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No.943)
18. Lakhwinder Kaur, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 945)
19. Kamlesh Kumari, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 953)
20. Promila Devi, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No.954)
21. Narinder Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 956)
22. Parvinder Kaur, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 959)
23. Krishna Devi, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No. 960)
24. Jaswinder Kaur, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No.962)
25. Kamlesh/Gurdas, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No.963)
26. Avnit Kaur, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No.964)
27. Jaswinder Kaur, Nursing Sister Grade-I (File No.999)
Nos. 5 to 27 presently working as Nursing sister Grade-I in PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh through Chief Nursing Officer, PGI, Chandigarh.
..Respondents
Present: Mr. Brajesh Mittal, counsel for the applicants
Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, counsel for Resp. No. 1
Mr. Vikrant Sharma, counsel for Respdtns. No. 2 to 4 and for applicants in MA No. 1107/2011
Mr. Raman Sharma, counsel for respondents No. 6 to 27
(2) O.A. No. 56/CH/2012
1. Brij Mohan Dhawan S/o Sh. S.N. Dhawan, aged 46 years, presently working as Sr. Laboratory Technician, Department of Experimental medicine and Biotechnology.
2. Anil Sood S/o Sh. P.C. Sood presently working as Sr. Laboratory Technician, Department of Haematology.
3. Sanjeev Gupta S/o Sh. C.L. Gupta presently working as Sr. Laboratory Technician, Department of Microbiology.
4. Yogesh Sharma S/o Sh. B.S. Sharma presently working as Sr. Laboratory Technician, Department of Cardiology.
5. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu S/o Sh. Gurchand Singh Sidhu presently working as Sr. Laboratory Technician, Department of Gastroenterology.
6. Sanjeev Pal Bedi S/o Sh. D.S. Bedi presently working as Sr. Laboratory Technician, Department of Microbiology.
7. Balwinder Singh S/o Sh. Baldev Singh presently working as Sr. Laboratory Technician, Department of Radiotherapy.
8. Radha Uppal w/o Sh. Lalit Kumar presently working as Sr. Laboratory Technician, Department of Citology.
9. Rajesh Goel S/o Sh. Hansraj Goel presently working as Sr. Laboratory Technician, Department of Transfusion Medicine.
10. Sucha Singh S/o Sh. Surjit Singh presently working as Sr. Laboratory Technician, Department of Haematology.
All working in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
.Applicants
Versus
1. The Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
2. Surinder Singh Banga, Technical Assistant, Department of Microbiology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12,Chandigarh.
..Respondents
Present: Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, counsel for the applicant
Mr. Anil Sharma, counsel for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Satbir S. Kanoria, counsel for Resp. No. 2
(3) O.A. No. 361/CH/2012
1. Ramesh Kumar Arora, aged 53 years, son of Late Sh. Mange Ram, Technical Assistant, Department of Haematology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
2. Shamsher Singh, aged 54 years, son of Sh. Bachan Singh, Technical Assistant, Department of Transfusion Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
3. Surinder Kaur, aged 51years, wife of Sh. Shamsher Singh, Technical Assistant, Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
4. Ashwani Kumar Munjal, aged 50 years, son of Late Sh. S.M. Munjal, Technical Assistant, Department of Bochemistry, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
5. Mohinder Pal Singh, aged 58 years, son of Late Sh. M.M. Singh, Technical Assistant, Department of Biochemistry, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
6. R.K. Sethi, aged 58 years, son of Sh. Bihari Lal Sethi, Technical Assistant, Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
7. Sada Ram, aged 54 years, son of Sh. Harbans Lal, Technical Assistant, Department of Parasitology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
8. Bhupinder Kumar, aged 49 years, son of Late Sh. Sahib Ram, Technical Assistant, Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
9. Yudh Pal Singh, aged 50 years, son of Sh. Kali Ram, Sr. Laboratory Technician, Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
10. Sunil Kumar Bose, aged 52 years, son of Late Sh. N.L. Bose, Sr. Laboratory Technician, Department of Haematology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
11. Rajiva Kumar, aged 51 years, son of Late Sh. N.L. Gupta, Sr. Laboratory Technician, Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
12. Parveen Bose, aged 46 years, wife of Sh. Sunil Kumar Bose, Sr. Laboratory Technician, Department of Haematology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
13. Samuel Phillip, aged 47 years, son of Sh. Phillip Masih, Sr. Laboratory Technician, Department of Biochemistry, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
.Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12 Chandigarh through its Director.
3. Sh. Charan Singh, aged 49 years, son of Sh. Dhani Ram, Technical Assistant, Department of Histopathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
4. Sh. Dev Raj Chumber, aged 51 years, son of Late Sh. Ram Kishan, Technical Assistant, Department of Biochemistry, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
5. Sh. Ram Chander, aged 50 years, son of Sh. Bhola Ram, Technical Assistant Department of Medical Microbiology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
6. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Dhiman, aged 54 years, son of sh. Gian Chand, Technical Assistant, Department of Pharmacology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
7. Dinesh Kumar, aged 52 years, son of Sh. Ram Bharose, Technical Assistant, Department of Biochemistry, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
8. Sh. Kulwinder Singh, aged 55 years, son of Sh. Garib Singh, Technical Assistant, Department of Hepatology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
9. Sh. Bhim Singh, aged 50 years, son of sh. Mai Chand, Technical Assistant, Department of Cardiology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
10. Sh. Rajinder Kumar, aged 49 years, son of Sh. Piara Ram, Technical Assistant, Department of Anesthesia, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
11. Sh. Govind Parshad, aged 50 years, son of Sh. Amar Nath, Technical Assistant, Department of Nephrology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
12. Sh. Kewal Krishan, aged 48 years, son of Sh. Ram Lal, Technical Assistant, Department of General Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
13. Sh. Surinder Singh Banga, aged 52 years, son of Sh. Bure Ram, Technical Assistant, Department of Medical Microbiology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
14. Bishwarup Karmakar, aged 56 years, son of Sh. S.K. Karmakar, Technical Assistant, Department of Advanced Pediatric Centre, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
15. Ishwar Chand, aged 46 years, son of Sh. Ram Swaroop, Technical Assistant, Department of Haematology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
16. Sh. R.P. Singh, aged 48 years, son of Sh. Amar Singh, Technical Assistant, Department of Experimental Medicine and Biotechnology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
17. Rattan Lal, aged 53 years, son of Sh. Mishri Lal, Technical Assistant, Department of Medical Microbiology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
18. Sh. Rajinder Kumar, aged 48 years, son of sh. Piara Ram, Technical Assistant, Department of Drug De-Addiction (D.D.T.C.) Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
19. Sh. Rishi Pal, aged 42 years, son of Sh. Dhari Singh, Technical Assistant, Department of Biochemistry, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
20. Sh. Vinod Kumar, aged 44 years, son of Sh. Ved Parkash, Technical Assistant Department of Histopathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
..Respondents
Present: Mr. Manohar Lal, proxy counsel for Applicant no. 4
Mr. Rohit Sharma, proxy counsel for Resp. No. 1
Mr. Vikrant Sharma, counsel for Resp. No. 2
Mr. S.S. Kanorai, counsel for Respdtns. NO. 3-15 & 17-20
Ms. Savita Saxena for Resp. No. 16.
(4) O.A. NO. 405/CH/2012
1. Mukesh Sharma S/o Sh. Gauri Shankar aged 50 presently working as Technical Assistant, Department of Cardiology.
2. Dina Nath Singh S/o Sh. Harwansh Singh presently working as Technical Assistant, Department of Orthopedics.
3. Rajiv Sharma S/o Late Sh. Asha Ram Sharma presently working as Technical Assistant, Department of Virology.
All working in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
.Applicants
Versus
1. The Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
2. Dev Raj Chumber S/o Sh. Ram Kishan, Technical Assistant, Department of Biochemistry, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
..Respondents
Present: Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, counsel for the applicants
Ms. Reeta Kohli, counsel for Resp. No. 1
Ms. Savita Saxena, counsel for Resp. No. 2
(5) O.A.NO.616-CH-2012
Jai Bhagwan Sharma S/o late Sh. H.P. Sharma, aged 57 years, presently working as Junior Stores Officer, Central Sterile Supply, Department, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
. Applicant
Versus
1. The Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
2. Sh. Surjit Singh, Asstt. Stores Officer, Central Stores Department, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
(Ex-parte vide order dated 17.8.2012).
Respondents
Present : Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, counsel for applicant.
Mr. D.R. Sharma, counsel for R.No.1.
(6) O.A.NO.621-CH-2012
Dhanwant Kaur W/o Sh. Amar Singh aged 59 years presently working as Deputy Nursing Superintendent, Central Sterile Supply Department, post Graduate institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
. Applicant
Versus
1. Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
2. Surjit Hans, Ex-Nursing Supdt. R/o House No. 2770, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.
Respondents
Present : Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, counsel for applicant.
Mr. D.R. Sharma, counsel for R.No.1.
Mr. D.K. Dogra, counsel for R.No.2.
(7) O.A.NO.679-CH-2012
1. Vinod Jolly w/o Sh. P. Rishi Jolly, aged 59 years (File No.203)
2. Simarjeet Bhullar W/o Sh. J.S. Bhullar (File No.206).
3. Bimla Verma W/o Sh. S.K. Verma (File No. 204).
All working as Deputy Nursing Superintendent, under Medical Superintendent, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
. Applicants
Versus
1. Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
2. Nirmal Dogra, Nursing Superintendent, under Medical Superintendent, post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & research, Sector-12, Chandigarh & resident of H.No. 1135, Sector 37/B, Chandigarh.
Respondents
Present : Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, counsel for applicants.
Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, counsel for R.No.1.
Mr. D.K. Dogra, counsel for R.No.2.
(8) O.A.NO.689-CH-2012
1. Gagan Bala Sharma w/o Sh. S.P. Sharma, aged 59 years (File No.181) working as Deputy Nursing Superintendent.
2. Rajinder Sharda w/o Sh. A.K. Sharda (File No. 166) working as Deputy Nursing Superintendent
3. Partap Narula w/o Sh. S.JP.S. Narula (File No. 144) working as Asstt. Nursing Superintendent
4. Roseline Dass d/o Late Sh. Tulsi Das (File No. 158) working as Asstt. Nursing Superintendent
All working under Medical Superintendent, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
. Applicants
Versus
1. Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
2. Saroj Gill, Nursing Superintendent, under Medical Superintendent, post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & research, Sector-12, Chandigarh & resident of H.No. 230, Phase-I, Mohali.
Respondents
Present : Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. Vikrant Sharma, Counsel for Respondents.
(9) O.A.NO.690-CH-2012
1. Rashpal Kaur W/o Sh. Joginder Singh aged 62 years (File No. 218) Retired as Asstt. Nursing Superintendent on 31.8.2010.
2. Geeta Rani Sharma w/o Sh. Jeet Kumar Sharma (File No. 225), retired as Asstt. Nursing superintendent on 31.5.2010.
Both working under Medical Superintendent, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
Applicants
Versus
1. Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
2. Gurmeet Baggi, Deputy Nursing Superintendent, under Medical Superintendent, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & research, Sector-12, Chandigarh & resident of H.No. 159, Phase-VI, Mohali. (Ex parte vide order dated 17.8.2012)
Respondents
By : Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. Vikrant Sharma, counsel for R.No.1.
Mr. Raman B. Garg, Counsel for R.No.2.
(10) O.A.NO.691-CH-2012
1. Vinod Sethi W/o Sh. Harish Chander Jolly aged 59 years (File No.197) working as Deputy Nursing Superintendent.
2. Sudarshan Bansal W/o Sh. Satish Bansal (File No.199) working as Deputy Nursing Superintendent.
3. Shakuntla Kaushal W/o Sh. Ashok Sharma (File No. 200( retired as Asstt. Nursing Superintendent w.e.f. 31.10.2008.
All under Medical Superintendent, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
Applicants
Versus
1. Director,Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
2. Mrs. Surjeet Hans, Retd. Nursing Superintendent, under Medical Superintendent, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & research, Sector-12, Chandigarh & resident of H.No. 2770, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.
Respondents
By : Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. D.R. Sharma, counsel for R.No.1.
Mr. D.K. Dogra, Counsel for R.No.2.
(11) O.A.NO.710-CH-2012
1. Shobha Mohini Bhandari W/o Sh. T.N. Bhandari, aged 58 years (File No.240)
2. Parveen Bhatia w/o Late Sh. Satish Bhatia (File No. 299) working as Deputy Nursing Superintendent.
Both presently working as Asstt. Nursing Superintendent under Medical Superintendent, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
..Applicants
Versus
1. Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
2. Mrs. Manjeet Sandella, Deputy. Nursing Superintendent, under Medical Superintendent, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & research, Sector-12, Chandigarh & resident of H.No. 5273, Sector 38-West, Chandigarh.
...Respondents
By : Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. D.R. Sharma, counsel for R.No.1.
Mr. Raman B. Garg, Counsel for R.No.2.
(12) O.A.NO.711-CH-2012
1. Rano Chaudhary W/o Sh. Subhash Chand Chaudhary, aged 61 years (File No.133) retired as Deputy Nursing Superintendent on 28.2.2011.
2. Charanjit Singh Saini W/o Sh. Khem Singh (File no. 132) retired on 30.11.2009.
3. Swarn Saini W/o Late Sh. Ishwar Singh (file No. 138) retired on 31.3.2010.
4. Sita Verma W/o Sh. Rajinder Parsad (File No. 139) retired on 31.1.2011.
All retired as Deputy Nursing Superintendent from the control of Medical Superintendent, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
Applicants
Versus
1. Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
2. Amarjeet Nafra, retd. Nursing Superintendent, under Medical Superintendent, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & research, Sector-12, Chandigarh & resident of H.No. 3121, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.
Respondents
By : Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. Vikrant Sharma, counsel for R.No.1.
Mr. D.K. Dogra, Counsel for R.No.2.
(13) O.A.NO.783-CH-2012
1. Indra Rani W/o Sh. Pawan Kumar aged 49 (file No. 983).
2. Kamaljit Kaur (File No. 1006)
Both working as Sister Grade I in the APC, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
2. The Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
3. Sh. Tryphina Benson, Sister Grade I, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
Respondents
By : Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. D.R. Sharma, counsel for R.No.1.
Mr. K.L. Kohli, Counsel for R.No.2.
(14) O.A.NO.404-CH-2012
1. Dr. Malkit Singh S/o Sh. Jagdish Rai aged 52 presently working as Technical Assistant, Department of Mircrobiology.
2. Y.N. Mishra, S/o Sh. B. Mishra presently working as Technical Assistant, Department of Microbiology.
Both working as in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
Applicants
Versus
1. The Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
2. Ram Chander, S/o Sh. Bhola Ram, Technical Assistant, Department of Microbiology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & research, Sector-12, Chandigarh.
Respondents
By : Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. Reeta Kohli, counsel for R.No.1.
Mr. Satbir Katnoria, Counsel for R.No.2.
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J):-
1. There being a conceded and apparent as well, commonness of the law point for adjudication in these OAs, we assume authorization to record a joint finding.
2. The principle, broad in character, requiring adjudication is the applicability or otherwise of the Catch up Rule to promotions in the light of the 85th amendment of the Constitution of India, in the absence of an exercise on the part of the governmental dispensation concerned to obtain identifiable data which was mandated by the Honble Apex Judicial Dispensation in M. Nagraj and others Vs. Union of India [2007(4) SCT 664].
3. The identical character of the point of law under adjudication notwithstanding, it requires to be indicated that OAs No. 404, 405, 406, 489 and 361 have been filed by the employees belonging to Lab Technician Dispensation; while the applicants in the other OAs are members of the nursing segment of the relevant medical dispensation.
4. The applicants in all these OAs are General Category employees; while the private respondents are from the Reserved Category. It is the latter category of employees who earned accelerated promotions in the relevant dispensation. Though the General Category employees too came to earn a similar promotion thereafter, the benefit of Catch up Rule came to be denied to them in the light of the 85th Constitutional Amendment. The denial proceeded on the premise that the retention of accelerated seniority was validated by the amendment aforementioned.
5. For facilitating appropriate appreciation of the facts in controversy, we would extract hereunder the averments in OA No. 404 of 2012. The applicants therein (Dr. Malkit Singh & Y.N. Mishra), as also the Private Respondent No. 2 therein, came to be appointed to the post of Junior Laboratory Technicians on 20.12.1983, 10.5.1983 & 27.1.1984 respectively. In terms of the relevant rule formulation, the promotion to the posts of Senior Laboratory Technicians is 100%, by way of promotion. Private Respondent No. 2 came to be promoted as Senior Laboratory Technician w.e.f. 1.3.1992; while applicants (Dr. Malkit Singh & Y.N. Mishra) earned that promotion w.e.f. 27.9.2001 and 14.8.1997 respectively. Thereafter, the Private Respondent No. 2 was promoted as Technical Assistant w.e.f. 10.11.2007; while the applicants earned that promotion w.e.f. 13.1.2012 & 24.1.2009 respectively.
6. The pure and simple plea raised by the applicants is for the applicability of the Catch-up rule in view of the fact that the relevant dispensation is not even averred to have undertaken an exercise to obtain the quantifiable data, as mandated by the Honble Apex Judicial dispensation in M. Nagrajs case (supra). Yet another plea raised is that the retention of accelerated seniority in favour of the private respondent(s) is violative of the mandate in M. Nagrajs case (supra).
7. The Official Respondents averred that the OA is time-barred in view of the fact that applicants cannot presently claim entitlement to the grant of benefit of the judgement in M. Nagrajs case (supra) which came to be pronounced in the year 2007. The applicants could have, it was averred in continuity, filed an OA within 1-1/2 years of the date of pronouncement of the judgement as provided for in the Central Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as Act). It was further reiterated by the Official Respondents that the grant of accelerated promotions to the Private Respondents and the denial of the Catch Up Rule to the General Category candidates, was validated by the 85th Constitutional Amendment.
8. In the course of the OA, the applicants had made a precise averment (in the course of para 4(xii) that the benefit similar to the benefit applied for by them, had been granted to one Sh. Gurmail Ram, vide order dated 14.9.2010 (w.e.f. 1.3.1992). The further averment, made in the course of that para, is that a similar benefit (vide order dated 13.4.2011 & 23.9.2011), with retrospective effect, came to be granted in OA. 998/CH/2010 & OA. 996/CH/2010 which had been filed by Dr. Charan Singh Rayat & Kundan Singh & Anr. respectively.
9. In the corresponding para of the Counter, the fact and effect of the judgements quoted in the preceding para was not controverted.
10. In view of the identical character of the pleadings raised by the parties herein, we deem it appropriate to extract hereunder the contents of para 4(xii) of the OA, as also the corresponding para of the counter:-
OA.
4(i) to (xi) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 4(xii) That one similarly situated employee Sh. Gurmail Ram filed CWP No. 17478/2001, which came to be transferred to this Honble Tribunal and registered as TA No. 146/2009. Said case has been allowed by this Honble Tribunal vide order dated 25.5.2010, on the basis of decision of Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court on the similar issue, in the case of Charan Dass Vs. State of Haryana (CWP No. 5956 of 2008 decided on 18.11.2008), and Sh. Gurmail Ram has been granted the benefit of Catch up Rule w.e.f. 1.3.1992 vide order dated 14.9.2010, i.e. from the date of his promotion at par with his junior. Applicants also made representations to the respondent No. 1 for grant of same benefit, but without any response. Two other similar cases were also filed titled as Dr. Charan Singh Rayat Vs. Union of India (OA No. 998/CH/2010) and Kundan Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Others (OA No. 996/CH/2010). During the pendency of said OAs applicants therein have been found entitled to benefit of Catch up Rule and have been conferred seniority above their junior (who was promoted earlier under the rule of reservation) vide orders dated 13.4.2011 & 23.9.2011 (A-5);
Corresponding para of the Counter 4(xii) The contents of the sub para (xii) are matter of record to the extent that the case of Sh. Gurmail Ram was decided by the Honble CAT vide judgement dated 25.5.2010. As per judgement of the Honble Central Tribunal Chandigarh, the seniority of Sh. Gurmail Ram was fixed above Sh. Jasmer Singh as Sr. Lab Technician w.e.f. 1.3.1992. However, he is not entitled to further promotion as Technical Assistant in view of the 85th Constitutional Amendment affective from 17.6.1995 under the Catch up Rule as decided by Honble CAT vide judgement dated 25.5.2010. Further the seniority of Dr. Charan Singh Rayat and Kundan Singh and others was alsofixed in view of the Constitutional amendments dated 17.6.1995 under the Catch-up-Rule.
11. The Private Respondent (s) also raised a plea of limitation and placed implicit reliance upon the averred outcome of 85th Constitutional Amendment qua the validation of the accelerated seniority to him (them).
12. On point of fact, it may be noticed that the first judgement on the point under adjudication was pronounced in Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India (1993 Vol. I SCT 448) on 16.11.1992. The Honble Apex Court categorically announced therein that reservations would apply only in the matter of initial appointments and that there would be no reservations in promotions. The judgement in Union of India Vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan etc. (1955(4) SCT 695 (which came to be pronounced on 10.10.1995) affirmed the view in Indira Sawhneys case. The relevant finding recorded by the Honble Apex Court in the former case is extracted hereunder:-
a)Reservations contemplated in Clause (4) of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India should not exceed 50% though in certain extraordinary situations, some relaxations may however become imperative;
b)An executive order making a provision is enforceable without being incorporated into the rule made under Article 309 proviso; and
c)Reservations of appointments of posts under Article 16(4) should confine only to initial appointment and cannot extend to providing reservation in the matter of promotion.
13. The view aforementioned came to be affirmed in Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan etc.: 1995(4) SCT 695 (decided on 10.10.1995) wherein it was reiterated that reservation in promotions is not warranted by Article 16(4)(A) of the Constitution of India.
14. The Constitution (77th) Amendment Act 1995 came into being thereafter w.e.f. 17.6.1995. All that it provided was that nothing contained in Article 16 of Constitution of India shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which was not adequately represented in the services under the State. It was further thereafter that the 85th amendment came into being (w.e.f. 17.6.1995) and added clause 4A to Article 16 of the Constitution of India. That clause 4A is extracted hereunder:-
(4A) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.
15. The fact and effect of Clause 4A, as analysed by the Honble Supreme court in M. Nagraj case (supra), was noticed by this Tribunal in OAs. 308/CH/2010, 870/CH/2011, 1089/CH/2011 & 921/CH/2011. In the course of discussion, we had also noticed the reiteration of the principle aforementioned in Suraj Bhan Meena & Another Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Others, SLP( C ) No.6385/2010, decided on 7.12.2010.
16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Official as also the Private Respondents vehemently canvassed that a favourable consideration of the claim raised by the applicants in these OAs would amount to setting at nought the Law of Limitation because the applicants herein are raising a challenge to certain placements which attained finality quite a few years ago. Reliance, in support of the view, was placed upon the judgement rendered by the Honble Apex Court in UOI & Others Vs. Tarsem Singh, a copy whereof is available on the file of OA. 361 as Annexure R-4.
17. In resistance, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants argued that the point under adjudication in Annexure R-4 was altogether different in as much as it pertained to the period for which the applicant therein was entitled to disability pension. In the present OAs, it was argued in continuity, the disallowance of the claim would amount to a creation of a class within class because a number of employees of the PGI dispensation itself, have already been granted the benefit of Catch up Rule, vide order dated 29.10.2012 and w.e.f. 1.3.1992.
18. On consideration of the respective stances indicated by the parties, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to uphold the bar of limitation. The reasons therefor are as under.
19. It would be apparent, from a perusal of the extracted pleadings quoted in the course of para 6 of this order, that the Official Respondents have not denied having granted the benefit of the Catch up Rule to the General Category employees by the grant of an order dated 29.10.2012 & further that the grant thereof has been ordered to come about with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 1.3.1992. For want of even an averment that the judgement (in Gurmail Ram), on the basis whereof the benefit of Catch up Rule benefit came to be granted by the PGI in favour of General Category employees, had been quashed either in the Judicial Review Jurisdiction or in an SLP by the Honble Apex Judicial Dispensation, the orders therein would be inferred to have attained finality. In case the applicants herein are non-suited on point of limitation, two sets of General Category employees would surface in the PGI. One category would be of those who had been able to regain their original seniority by the application of the Catch up Rule; while the other category would be that of the applicants and the likes of them who would be denuded of that benefit. The principles of natural justice and fair play cannot act in acceptance of such a scenario. The announced law of the land would ordain that all similarly circumstanced are treated alike. We would, accordingly, negate the limitation plea for this reason as well.
20. It would be apparent, from a perusal of the judgements in Indra Sawhneys case, Virpal Singh Chauhans case, M.Nagraj case and Suraj Bhan Meena (supra), that though the Court did uphold the constitutionality of the 85th Amendment, it did not mince words in announcing that the denial of Catch up Rule could validly come about only if the relevant dispensation had undertaken an appropriate survey on the quantifiable data regarding the adequacy of representation and had recorded a conscious finding on the basis thereof that the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes .are not adequately represented in the services under the State. That the Union of India had not undertaken such an exercise, was held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on point of fact, in Lacchmi Narayan Gupta & Others Vs. Union of India (CWP 13218 of 2009) decided on 15.7.2011. The fact that PGI, though autonomous in character, is governed by the Govt. of India instructions, cannot be controverted. For facility of reference, we would extract hereunder paras 17 & 18 of the Judgement recorded in 308/CH/2010, 870/CH/2011, 1089/CH/2011 & 921/CH/2011:-
17. In replicating the plea raised that no survey had been undertaken, the learned counsel for the applicants in this O.A. relied upon the view obtained by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Uttam Chand and another vs. the Administrator, Union Territory Chandigarh and others - OA No.566-CH of 2008 to the effect that no exercise in the context had been undertaken either by the State of Punjab or the Chandigarh Administration. (Admittedly, no such exercise has been carried out by the Competent Authority or grant of seniority has been made by either State of Punjab or Chandigarh Administration. The learned counsel, in continuity, also relied upon the view obtained by the learned Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in LAXMI NARAYAN GUPTA VS. JAS SINGH & OTHERS: CWP No.13218 of 2009, decided on 15th July, 2011 to the above effect. The relevant observations made therein are extracted hereunder:-
38. When the principles laid down in the case of M. Nagaraj (supra) and Suraj Bhan Meena (supra) are applied to the notifications impugned in the present proceedings, namely, 11.7.2002, 31.1.2005 (R-1 and R-2) and further notification dated 21.1.2009 and 10.8.2010, it becomes clear that no survey has been undertaken to find out inadequacy of representation in respect of members of the SC/ST in the services. The aforesaid fact has been candidly admitted in the written statement filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6. The aforesaid fact has also been conceded by the respondent-Union of India in the communication dated 15.9.2010. In para (iv) of the aforesaid communication it has been stated that no exercise was carried out to assess the inadequacy of representation of SC/STs in the services under the Government of India before issue of instructions dated 31.1.2005. The aforementioned communication has been placed on record along with CM No.14865 of 2010. In the absence of any survey with regard to inadequacy as also concerning the overall requirement of efficiency of the administration where reservation is to be made alongwith backwardness of the class for whom the reservation is required, it is not possible to sustain these notifications. Accordingly, it has to be held that these notifications suffers from violation of the provisions of Articles 16(4A), 16(4B) read with Article 335 of the Constitution as interpreted by the Constitution Bench in M.Nagarajs case (supra) as well as in Suraj Bhan Meenas case (supra).
(In that case, the High Court was dealing with a plea raised in the context of reservation-based promotions granted to the Income Tax Inspectors of SC/ST category).
18. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the plea raised on behalf of the applicants. In OA No.566-CH of 2008, a learned Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal recorded a finding, consensual in character, to the extent that no survey in the context had been undertaken by the Chandigarh Administration. In Laxmi Narain Gandhis case (supra), a learned Division Bench of the High court recorded a finding that no exercise was carried out to assess the inadequacy of representation of SC/STs in the services under the Government of India before issue of instructions dated 31.1.2005.
21. Shri Raman Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that the applicants cannot validly apply for the invalidation of the promotions earned by the reserved category candidates prior to the rendering of the judgment dated 10.10.1995 in Virpal Singh Chauhans case.
22. The plea raised does not merit acceptance for the simple reason that the private respondents cannot wish away the proven fact that the benefit of Catch Up Rule has already been granted by Respondent no. 1 to the General Category candidates, vide order dated 29.10.2012 and w.e.f 1.3.1992. This aspect already stands dealt with in the course of discussion contained in para 18 of this order. For the reasoning recorded in the course thereof, we have no hesitation in negating the plea to the above effect.
23. The following inferences can, thus, be safely culled out from the above discussion:-
(a) The denial of Catch up Rule to the General Category candidates can validly come about only after the exercise mandated in M. Nagraj case(supra) had been undertaken by the relevant dispensation (Central Government/State Government/UT Administration). That exercise is not proved to have been undertaken at all by all of them and there also is no averment that the PGI had undertaken any such exercise at its own level.
(b) The applicants cannot be non-suited on point of limitation for the reasons recorded in para 18 of this order.
24. In the light of foregoing discussion, we would allow all these OAs and direct the Official Respondents to grant the benefit of Catch up Rule to the applicants herein.
25. In view of the fact that the determination of the adjudication had come about on an appreciation of point of law, the parties shall bear their own costs of the cause.
26. A copy of this order be placed on each connected file.
27. The implementation of this order must come about within one month from the date a copy of this order is delivered in the office of the Competent Authority i.e. Respondent no. 2 in all the OAs.
28. Disposed of accordingly.
(JUSTICE S.D.ANAND)
MEMBER(J)
(RANBIR SINGH)
MEMBER(A)
Dated: November 15 , 2012.
ND*
35
OA. 404/CH/12 & 13 connected matters