Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Dr Kamalesh Kumar Sharma vs National Institute Of Ayurveda, Jaipur on 8 November, 2024
OA No. 63/2018, OA No. 334/2018, OA No. 335/2018 & OA No. 421/2019 with MA No. 651/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
Original Application No. 63/2018
Original Application No. 334/2018,
Original Application No. 335/2018
&
Original Application No. 421/2019
with
Misc. Application No. 651/2019
ORDER RESERVED ON: 10.10.2024
DATE OF ORDER: 08.11.2024
CORAM
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
OA No. 63/2018
Dr. Parimi Suresh S/o Shri Parimi Durga Prasada Rao, aged
about 60 years. Presently posted as Professor Ras Shastra,
National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
..... Applicant
Shri Mahesh Chand Gupta, counsel for the applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of
Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and
Homoeopathy (AYUSH), Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. The National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur Madho Vilas
Palace, Amer Road, Jaipur through its Director.
3. Deputy Director (Admn.), National Institute of
Ayurveda, Madho Vilas Palace, Amer Road, Jaipur.
..... Respondents
Shri Rajendra Vaish, counsel for respondent No. 1
Shri M.D. Agarwal, counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
OA No. 63/2018, OA No. 334/2018, OA No. 335/2018 & OA No. 421/2019 with MA No. 651/2019
OA No. 334/2018
Dr. Smt. Sushila Sharma w/o Sh. Ashutosh Sharma, aged
about 60 years, presently posted as Professor Gynaecology,
National Institute of Ayurveda, Madho Vilas Palace, Amer
Road, Jaipur.
..... Applicant
Shri Mahesh Chand Gupta, counsel for the applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of
Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and
Homoeopathy (AYUSH), Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi-110023.
2. The National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur Madho Vilas
Palace, Amer Road, Jaipur through its Director-
302002.
3. Deputy Director (Admn.), National Institute of
Ayurveda, Madho Vilas Palace, Amer Road, Jaipur-
302002.
..... Respondents
Shri Rajendra Vaish, counsel for respondent No. 1
Shri M.D. Agarwal, counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
OA No. 335/2018
Dr. Mohan Lal Jaiswal s/o Sh. Malik Prasad, aged about 60
years, presently posted as Professor Dravya Gun, National
Institute of Ayurveda, Madho Vilas Palace, Amer Road,
Jaipur.
..... Applicant
Shri Mahesh Chand Gupta, counsel for the applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of
Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and
Homoeopathy (AYUSH), Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi-110023.
OA No. 63/2018, OA No. 334/2018, OA No. 335/2018 & OA No. 421/2019 with MA No. 651/2019
2. The National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur Madho Vilas
Palace, Amer Road, Jaipur through its Director-
302002.
3. Deputy Director (Admn.), National Institute of
Ayurveda, Madho Vilas Palace, Amer Road, Jaipur-
302002.
..... Respondents
Shri Rajendra Vaish, counsel for respondent No. 1
Shri M.D. Agarwal, counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
OA No. 421/2019 with MA No. 651/2019
Dr. Kamalesh Kumar Sharma s/o Late Sh. Radheshyam
Sharma, aged about 60 vyears, presently posted as
Professor Swastha Vritta, National Institute of Ayurveda,
Madho Vilas Palace, Amer Road, Jaipur.
Group-A
R/o 19, Kalyan Nagar-3, Sita Badi, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
Mob. No. 9413345633.
..... Applicant
Shri Mahesh Chand Gupta, proxy counsel for
Shri Vikas Kabra, counsel for the applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of
Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and
Homoeopathy (AYUSH), Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi-110001.
2. The National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur Madho Vilas
Palace, Amer Road, Jaipur through its Director-
302002.
3. Deputy Director (Admn.), National Institute of
Ayurveda, Madho Vilas Palace, Amer Road, Jaipur-
302002.
..... Respondents
Shri M.D. Agarwal, counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
OA No. 63/2018, OA No. 334/2018, OA No. 335/2018 & OA No. 421/2019 with MA No. 651/2019
ORDER
Per: RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
At the request of learned counsels for the parties, OA
No. 63/2018, OA No. 334/2018, OA No. 335/2018 and OA
No. 421/2019 with MA No. 651/2019 are taken up together
for disposal as common question of law and facts is
involved in the aforesaid matters/OAs.
2. For the sake of convenience, brief facts of OA No.
63/2018 are taken up. The relief sought for by the applicant
in the said OA is as under: -
i) to declare the impugned order dated
16.01.2017 (Annex. A/1) to be illegal and unconstitutional and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the applicant.
to declare the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of order dated 24.11.2017 issued by the Ministry of AYUSH to the faculty of National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur as illegal and unconstitutional and the respondent No. 2 may be directed to issue formal order for implementing the order dated 24.11.2017 to the doctors working with the respondent No. 2 with all consequential benefits;
iii) directing the respondents to allow the applicant to continue in the services of the respondent No. 2 till he attains the age of 65 years with all consequential benefits;
Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case OA No. 63/2018, OA No. 334/2018, OA No. 335/2018 & OA No. 421/2019 with MA No. 651/2019 may kindly be passed in favour of humble applicant including award of cost of this original application."
3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that he retired from the post of Associate Professor w.e.f. 31.01.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation i.,e. 60 years from the National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur, which was established by Government of India. The Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH), Government of India vide order dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure A/7) enhanced the age of superannuation of the AYUSH Doctors under the Ministry of AYUSH and those working in CGHS Dispensaries / Hospitals to 65 years w.e.f. 27.09.2017.
4. Through the present O.A., the applicant is seeking extension of the benefit of aforesaid order dated 24.11.2017 issued by the Ministry of AYUSH whereby the retirement age of AYUSH Doctors working under the Ministry of AYUSH and those working in CGHS Dispensaries / Hospitals has been enhanced to 65 years. The Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 30.01.2018 had ordered status quo with regard to services of the applicant. The applicant is seeking the extension of the benefit of the aforesaid order dated 24.11.2017 enhancing the age of superannuation to 65 years on the ground that the National OA No. 63/2018, OA No. 334/2018, OA No. 335/2018 & OA No. 421/2019 with MA No. 651/2019 Institute of Ayurveda is fully financed and controlled by the Ministry of AYUSH and the applicant being a Professor in Ras Shastra in the respondent-Institute discharged all duties and functions as being discharged by AYUSH doctors under the Ministry of AYUSH and working in CGHS Dispensaries / Hospitals.
5. The applicant asserts that since the Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH has increased the retirement age of AYUSH doctors and doctors working in CGHS Dispensaries / Hospitals, as such, the retirement age of the applicant working in the National Institute of Ayurveda, which is fully financed and controlled by Ministry of AYUSH, should also be enhanced.
6. The respondents in their reply have stated that Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH has enhanced the age of superannuation to 65 years vide its order dated 24.11.2017 of the AYUSH Doctors under the Ministry of AYUSH and working in CGHS Dispensaries / Hospitals w.e.f. 27.09.2017. From the said order, it is apparent that the same is applicable only to the AYUSH Doctors under the Ministry of AYUSH and working in CGHS Dispensaries / Hospitals.
7. The respondents have further stated that the order dated 24.11.2017 enhancing the age of superannuation is OA No. 63/2018, OA No. 334/2018, OA No. 335/2018 & OA No. 421/2019 with MA No. 651/2019 applicable only to AYUSH Doctors under the Ministry of AYUSH and Doctors working in CGHS Dispensaries / Hospitals and not applicable to the autonomous organisations. They have stated that the National Institute of Ayurveda though is fully financed and controlled by the Ministry of AYUSH; yet it has been established as an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Governing Body of the Institute is a supreme body and the Health Minister of the Union of India is President of the Governing Body of the respondent- Institute. They have stated that all the service conditions and financial benefits to the employees of the Institute are not in accordance with the Ministry of AYUSH.
8. The respondents have asserted that the age of superannuation has been enhanced only of the Doctors working under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the same cannot be claimed by the applicant, who was employee of the Institute, which is an autonomous body.
9. During the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the applicant was relieved on 26.06.2020 following the vacation of the interim relief of status quo granted on 30.01.2018 and now the applicant has already crossed the age of 65 years. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed before us the office order 8 OA No. 63/2018, OA No. 334/2018, OA No. 335/2018 & OA No. 421/2019 with MA No. 651/2019 dated 29™ June, 2020 whereby the applicant was relieved from the Institute.
10. To counter this, learned counsel for the applicant has placed before us the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 19.11.2019 passed in the case of East Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Dr. Pratibha Sharma [Cont. CAS (C) No. 533/2019] contending that the applicant should be considered as having retired at the age of 65 years and should be paid the salary for the period from the date of relieving i.e. 29.06.2020 till the date he attained the age of 65 years despite not having worked for that period, as he was not in the service for that period upto 65 years. He has also relied upon the order dated 24.08.2017 passed by Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dr. Santosh Kumar Sharma & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 2712/2016) and connected matters.
11. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
12. The applicant was working with National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur, which was established by the Government of India. The Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy, Government of India vide order dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure A/7) enhanced the age of superannuation of the AYUSH Doctors OA No. 63/2018, OA No. 334/2018, OA No. 335/2018 & OA No. 421/2019 with MA No. 651/2019 under the Ministry of AYUSH and those working in CGHS Dispensaries / Hospitals to 65 years w.e.f. 27.09.2017. The applicant attained the age of 60 years and was due to superannuate on 31.01.2018. However, pursuant to the grant of status quo with regard to services of the applicant vide order dated 30.01.2018 by Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal, he continued in service beyond the age of 60 years till he was relieved vide Office Order dated 29% June, 2020 on vacation of the order granting status quo by this Tribunal resultantly since 29 June, 2020, he is not working with the respondent-department.
13. The applicant is seeking not only extension of the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation granted by the Ministry of AYUSH vide order dated 24.11.2017 but is also seeking payment of salary etc. for the period for which he was actually not working following his relieving i.e. from 29" June, 2020, till the time he attained the age of 65 years.
14. During the pendency of this O.A., it is admitted by both sides that the applicant has already crossed the age of 65 years. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant instead pressed for the relief to grant of salary etc. for the period for which the applicant actually had not worked pursuant to his relieving from the services of the Respondent-Institute, 10 OA No. 63/2018, OA No. 334/2018, OA No. 335/2018 & OA No. 421/2019 with MA No. 651/2019 in which he was continuing to work beyond the age of 60 years merely because of the status quo granted by this Tribunal, which was later on revoked by this Tribunal. Learned counsel for the applicant cited the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 19.11.2019 passed in the case of East Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Dr. Pratibha Sharma [Cont. CAS (C) No. 533/2019] (supra), which reads as follows: -
"Affidavit dated 11.09.2019 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in compliance of order dated 09.07.2019 made by this court and order dated 30.04.2019 made in W.P. (C) No. 4524/2019 titled East Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Dr. Pratibha Sharma & Ors. confirming that the sum of Rs. 89,04,434/- has been paid to the respondent on 05.08.2019.
A copy of this affidavit also appears to have been supplied to the respondent on 13.09.2019. However no response to the affidavit dated 11.09.2019 has been filed by the respondent, inspite of the last opportunity having been granted for the purpose vide order dated 13.09.2019.
It would therefore appear that the respondent has no response to offer to what is stated in the affidavit dated 11.09.2019 ; and that therefore the petition has been rendered infructuous.
In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. However, leave is granted to the respondent to approach the court again if there is no compliance on the part of the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the applicant, as is evident from the above cited order, has not been able to show the facts and circumstances of the above said case except repeatedly stressing that in the above said case, a sum of Rs. 11 OA No. 63/2018, OA No. 334/2018, OA No. 335/2018 & OA No. 421/2019 with MA No. 651/2019 89,04,434/- was paid to the respondent therein. In fact in the above said order, it is observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the respondent had not given any response to the offer to what is stated in the affidavit dated 11.09.2019 filed by the petitioner confirming the payment of the sum of Rs. 89,04,434/- and, accordingly, disposed off the petition as infructuous. On what account the above said payment was made and what was the controversy involved, is not reflected at all in the above mentioned order. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the controversy involved in the present O.A. is covered by the above said order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is not sustainable.
15. As to the order dated 24.08.2017 passed by Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dr. Santosh Kumar Sharma & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 2712/2016) and connected matters (supra), the issue before the Tribunal was as follows: -
"14. xxxxx whether the Doctors working in various disciplines under the Ministry of AYUSH, or, may be dental doctors, are entitled to the benefit of the enhancement of age of superannuation as notified for the Doctors in the CHS belonging to the discipline of Allopathy on the principle of parity, and whether denial of such benefit to the Doctors belonging to the discipline other than Allopathy, is discriminatory in nature ad violative of the principles enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."12
OA No. 63/2018, OA No. 334/2018, OA No. 335/2018 & OA No. 421/2019 with MA No. 651/2019 This Principal Bench of this Tribunal took the view in the above mentioned order dated 24.08.2017, which reads as follows: -
"30. xxxxx No distinguishable features between the Doctors under the Allopathy system and those under AYUSH working in the Corporations have been demonstrated in the reply to deny them similar benefit as granted to the Allopathy doctors. There is in fact discrimination between the Doctors working in different Corporations. Even Allopathy Doctors working in the East and South DMCs have been denied similar treatment. There is no intelligible differentia for treating the Doctors working in Allopathy discipline including Dental Surgeons in CHS and those in MCD and/or in other organizations/streams differently. Similarly, the Doctors working in Indian system of medicines, i.e., under AYUSH, whether Homeopathy, Ayurveda, Unani or Sidha, who are also performing similar duties in their own system and are governed by similar service conditions also cannot be treated differently on the basis of the discipline. This action is clearly hostile and discriminatory in nature.
16. The question in the above matter before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal was that of parity between the Doctors working in various disciplines under the same Ministry i.e. Allopathy and Homeopathy, whereas in the present case, the applicant is seeking extension of the benefit granted by Ministry of AYUSH to the Doctors working with the Ministry and those working with an Institute, which is an autonomous entity. As such, the above mentioned judgment is not applicable to the present O.A. 13 OA No. 63/2018, OA No. 334/2018, OA No. 335/2018 & OA No. 421/2019 with MA No. 651/2019
17. The applicant already worked beyond the age of 60 years due to the interim relief of status quo granted by this Tribunal and for that period, he was duly paid as per rules. In the present O.A., the applicant is going a step further and is seeking salary etc. for the period for which he never worked i.e. from the date of his relieving from the service with the Institute till the date he attained the age of 65 years, which he has already attained. It is beyond our comprehension as to how the applicant can be paid for the period for which he never worked.
18. In the light of above, the present Original Application deserves no interference by this Tribunal and, thus, the same deserves to be dismissed.
19. With these observations, all the aforesaid connected similar Original Applications are dismissed. No order as to costs.
20. In view of the order passed in the OAs, all the pending Misc. Applications(s) are disposed off.
(LOK RANJAN) (RANJANA SHAHI) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER