Delhi High Court - Orders
Dr. Shilpa Bhardwaj vs Rajiv Gandhi Super Specialty Hospital ... on 1 July, 2020
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~A-4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) 3846/2020
Dr. SHILPA BHARDWAJ ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Kunal Sharma andMr.
Shubhendu Bhattacharyya, Advocate
versus
RAJIV GANDHI SUPER SPECIALTY
HOSPITAL SOCIETY THROUGH THE
DIRECTOR AND ANR. ..... Respondent
Through Col. Harish Chander Sharma, Medical
Superintendent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 01.07.2020 Hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. CM No.13773/2020 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CM No.13774/2020 (Exemption from filing affirmed affidavits) In view of the reasons stated in the Application, the same is disposed of with a direction to Applicant to file duly affirmed Affidavits within a period of one week of lifting of the lockdown.
Application stands disposed of.
WP(C) 3846/2020 and CM 13772/2020 Petitioner acquired MBBS Degree in 2007 from Lady Hardinge Medical College and thereafter completed her internship at the said College & Associated Hospital. She has also completed her M.D. in Bio Chemistry from the said College.
Pursuant to an advertisement for the post of Associate Professor (Biochemistry), by Respondent No.1, Petitioner had applied. Interview was held by the Selection Committee constituted by GNCTD, on 23.02.2016. It is averred in the Petition that Petitioner was verbally informed by the Committee that she had been selected for the post of Assistant Professor (Bio Chemistry) for a term of 5 years, though the initial appointment will be for 1 year and would be automatically renewed on year-to-year basis. Pursuant to the selection, an offer of appointment was issued to Petitioner by Respondent no.1 on 01.08.2016, appointing her for a period of one year.
Extensions were given on yearly basis thereafter and the last yearly extension was upto 06.04.2020. After a gap of nearly two months, impugned Order was issued on 02.06.2020, whereby, extension has been granted to Petitioner only upto 06.07.2020 instead of yearly extension upto April, 2021.
Principal contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that the Rules envisage an initial appointment for a period of five years and termination can only be with a three months' prior notice. He submits that Petitioner was appointed after following due process of law and through selection by a Selection Committee, with the approval of the Governing Council. Reliance is placed on Clauses 5.1, 6.5, 6.6 and 7.1 of Memorandum of Association of Respondent No.1 which are extracted hereunder:
"5. Human Resource: Post Creation 5.1 Before posts of any level are created, proposal in this regard with respect to pay & broad terms & conditions of engagement will require first the concurrence of the Governing Council and thereupon it will be sent to the Government for approval.
6. Human Resource: Recruitment xxxx xxxx xxxx 6.5 For appointment of Medical Officers, Specialists, Teaching faculty approval of Governing Council shall be taken. For appointment of other categories approval of the Executive Committee shall be taken, and the Government of other categories approval of the Executive Committee shall be taken, and the Governing Council shall be kept informed.
6.6 All appointments of doctors, nurses, paramedical staff, technical & allied healthcare staff & ministerial/ executive staff if not outsourced shall be engaged initially on a contract for a period of 5 years with a notice period of 3 months from either side for severance of contract. Further extension will be based on annual performance appraisal report upto the age of superannuation in the NCT Government of Delhi.
7. Human Resources: Tenure of Appointment 7.1 Subject to the Government's general approval in this regard, Doctors, Nurses, Paramedical staff, technical & allied healthcare staff & ministerial / executive staff, if not outsourced shall be engaged initially on contract for a period of 5 years with a notice period of 3 months from either side for severance of contract. Further extension will be based on annual performance appraisal report upto the age of superannuation in the Government of Delhi."
Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that even after 5 years Petitioner was entitled to further extension, subject to performance assessed on the basis of Appraisal Reports. It is submitted that Petitioner has been denied extension only because she made a complaint of sexual harassment against one doctor. The Internal Complaints Committee took no action and Petitioner then filed a complaint with the Police and charge sheet has been issued.
Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that troubles of the Petitioner started only once this complaint was made. Until then she had been actively involved in several activities of the Hospital, including inauguration of Labs and Centres. Petitioner was Head of Office and was being applauded for her work. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that Petitioner is a good Doctor and has never given cause for complaint regarding her performance. She has been very dedicatedly handling work with respect to COVID-19 patients at the Hospital.
Learned counsel submits that the impugned letter is against the Rules as well as principles of natural justice. All doctors appointed with the Petitioner have been granted one year extension and only she has been single out and she would be released on 6.07.2020 in case the interim relief is not granted. The impugned action is only to punish the Petitioner for standing up for her rights.
Issue Notice.
Col. Harish Chander Sharma, Medical Superintendent of the Hospital has appeared on advance copy. He submits that he needs time to engage a lawyer and file reply.
Let reply be filed within a period of four weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
Till the next date of hearing, Respondents are restrained from discontinuing the service of the Petitioner.
List on 17th August, 2020.
JYOTI SINGH, J JULY 01, 2020 yg