Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Rekha Sharma vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 12 September, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Original Application No. 291/00473/2017 Jaipur, this the 12" day of September, 2017 CORAM Hon'ble Mr Kailash Nath Shrivastava, Member (A) Hon'ble Mr Suresh Kumar Monga, Member (J) 1. Dr Rekha Sharma (C.M.O.) MBBS (MS Ophthalmology), D/o Sh. D.C. Gaur, aged about 50 years, H.No. 1, Mansinghpura, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 2. Dr Pradeep Mangal (CMO, Working as MVO), S/o HL. Mangal, aged about 44 years, R/o 70/33-A, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur. Dr Rakesh Ku. Meena (Specialist Skin & VD), S/o P.N. Meena, aged about 49 years, 30 Jaikishan Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur. Dr Lalit Ku. Punjabi (Sepcialist Orthopedics) S/o late Sh. Chela Ram Punjabi, R/o 116, Vashishtha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur. Dr Sunita Hingorani CMO D/o Late Sh. Prahlad Hingorani, aged about 55 years, R/o 116, Vashishtha Marg, Pratap nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur. Dr Pratibha Shekhawat, CMO, D/o Dr. V.N.S. Tomar, aged about 52 years, R/o 68, Marudhar Vihar Colony, Khatipura Mod, Jaipur-302012. Dr Sadhana Sharma (CMO, MS Obstetrics in Gynecology), D/o Dr B.K. Joshi, aged 55 years, R/o B-118, Parshwanath Colony, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur. -- All applicants are presently working in ESIC Mode] Hospital, Jaipur. beeeeee Applicant By Advocate: Mr V.D. Sharma. Versus 1. Employees State Insurance Corporation through its Director General, Medical Division-IV, H.Q. Office Panchdeep Bhawan, C.I.G. Marg, New Delhi-110002. 2. The Medical Commissioner, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Medical, H.Q. Office Panchdeep Bhawan, C.1.G. Marg, New Delhi-110002. 3. The Medical Superintendent, ESIC Model Hospital, Laxmi Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.). By Advocate: Mr Te] Prakash Sharma. we eeenes Respondents ORDER (Oral)
Per Mr Kailash Nath Shrivastava Heard. Issue notice to the respondents.
2. Mr Tej Prakash Sharma (T.P. Sharma) accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
3 The applicants joined in Govt. of Rajasthan as Medical Officer.
(ESIC) - Respondent Org anization on deputation, on various dates as detailed at page 25 & 26 of the paper book. Later, they have een absorbed in the respondent organization. They joined Employees State Insurance Corporation b The applicants have prayed for following relief(s) :
(i) 'The respondents be directed to allow Grade Pay under the provisions f DACP Scheme w.e.f. 29.10.2008 in terms of office memorandum dated 49.10.2008 and 21.07.2009 | (Annex. A/2 and Annex. A/3 respectively) with all consequential benefits including the due fixation and arrears of pay & allowances.
The respondents be further directed to give similar treatment as allowed to their co-workers after absorption in the matter of promotion/placement in higher grade pay.
(ii) (ii!) The respondents be further directed to allow revise pay as well as allowances in correct grade pay as per OM, after due fixation of pay after allowing higher grade pay with all consequential benefits.
(iv) Any other order, direction or relief may be passed in favour of the applicant, which may be deemed fit, just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) That the costs of this application may be awarded.
5. Mr V.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the applicant is squarely covered bya judgment of Banglore Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 16.10.2015 in OA No. 809/2013 to 831/2013. He further submits that this Bench also, following Banglore Bench judgment, has granted identical reliefs to similarly situated applicant therein in OA No. 328/2016 order dated 20.04.2017 (Dr Ratan Chaudhary V. Union of India & Ors). He further submits that the applicants have issued Annex. A/] legal notice dated 21.08.2017 to the respondents on this issue but the same has not yet been replied by the respondents. He further submits that the applicants would be satisfied if a time bound direction is given to the respondents to consider Annex. A/] legal notice of the applicants as their representation and dispose it of
6. Mr Tej Prakash Sharma (T.P. Sharma), learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if such a direction is issued to the 7, Having regards to the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without going into the merits of the case, this OA is disposed of in the following terms:
(a) The applicants are given liberty to submit a supplementary representation enclosing therewith a copy of the OA in addition to Annex. A/] legal notice, if they so desire. het the
(b)
(c) ss/ Annex. A/1 legal notice be treated as a representation of the applicants.
The respondents are directed to decide Annex. A/1 legal notice/representation, as well as, the supplementary representation received from the applicants, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of the supplementary representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The applicants shall have liberty to take remedial measures, as available to them under law, in case they remain dissatisfied with the order to be passed by the respondents on their legal notice/representation. + | ~--
| |
-Teuresh Rima Wrongay "Kailash Nath Shrivastava] Member (J) Member (A) Toe ed