Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Rajinder Prasad Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 19 January, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No 3044/2011 New Delhi this the 19th day of January, 2012 Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J) 1. Shri Rajinder Prasad Sharma, S/o Late Shri Sukh Ram, R/o G-14, MCD Flats, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. 2. Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Dr. D.V. Sharma, R/o 1/106, Street No.1, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi. 3. Shri Pradeep Kumar Kapoor, S/o Late A.N. Kapoor, R/o 2422/183, Ganesh Pura (A), Tri Nagar, Delhi. 4. Shri Krishan Dhan Kher, S/o Shri Balbir Singh, R/o D-80, MCD Flats, Azadpur, Delhi. 5. Shri Jagbir Singh Sharawat S/o Shri Mehar Singh, R/o B-7/13, Sectr-11, Rohini, Delhi-110085 6. Shri Sunil Kumar Tandon, S/o Ram Lal Tandon, R/o 388, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 7. Shri Sri Niwas S/o Late Jiya Lal, R/o A-103, Dilshad Colony, Delhi. 8. Shri Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Om Prakash, R/o 585, Khera Khurd Village, Delhi. 9. Shri Rajeev Yadav, S/o Harkesh Singh Yadav, R/o 98/1, Pocket D-6, Sector-6, Rohini, New Delhi. 10. Shri Anil Kumar, S/o Shri Attar Singh, R/o 69-B, Chander Vihar, Delhi-110092 11. Shri Satya Pal Singh S/o Shri Raj Pal Singh, R/o Village Sada Pur, P.O. Dhoomink Pur, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar. 12. Shri Rajinder Yadav, S/o Prithi Singh Yadav, R/o 47, Nangloi Extension 2C, Delhi. 13. Shri Sukhbir Singh, S/o Late D.L.Sharma, R/o D-65, Ganga Vihar, Delhi-110094 14. Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta, S/o Sh. G.D.Gupta, R/o S-220, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-92 Applicants (By Advocate Shri K.Venkatraman with Shri Shyam Moorjani and Shri Manjeet Singh Reen) VERSUS 1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Commissioner, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Additional Commissioner (Health), Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 3. Municipal Health Officer Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-6 4. Mahipal Singh, Malaria Inspector S/o Shri Kishan Singh, R/o H. No. 243, Village-Dalupura, Delhi-96 5. Narender Kumar, Malaria Inspector, S/o Late Shri Manohar Lal, A-1/1, New Kondali, Delhi-96 6. Mahander Kumar Bansal, Assistant Malaria Inspector, S/o Sh. Gyan Chand Bansal, R/o H.No. 125, Ward No.7, Jain Gali, Ballabh Garh, Haryana. 7. Ram Kumar Sharma, Senior Malaria Inspector S/o Shri Kehri Ram Sharma, R/o J-43, Roshan Pura, Najafgarh, New Delhi. 8. Rishikant Gaur, Malaria Inspector, S/o Late Sh.Om Prakash R/o Village &Post Chawla, Delhi-70 9. Rajinder Singh Kaushik, Assistant Malaria Inspector S/o Sh. Shri Dhar, R/o H-47, Uttam Nagar, Delhi 10. Azad Singh Sharawat (Malaria Inspector) S/o Sh. Chhaju Ram, R/o Chhaju Ram Market, Main Vijay Nagar, Bawana, Delhi-39 11. Gajraj Singhj Yadav (Malaria Inspector), S/o Sh. Hira Singh, R/o F.No.31, White House Apptt. Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi-85 12. Yogender Singh Sharma (Malaria Inspector) S/o Late Sh. L.R. Sharma, R/o H.No. 14, Village Sanoth, P.O. Narela, Delhi-40 13. Randhir Singh (Malaria Inspector) S/o Sh. Jeet Ram, R/o A-23, Suraj Park, Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi-39 14. Surender Rana, (Assistant Malaria Inspector) S/o Shri Prem Singh, R/o Village & P.O. Manger Pur, Delhi-110039. Respondents (By Advocate Shri RK Shukla and Shri Sourabh Ahuja ) O R D E R Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J) :
In 1996, major outbreak of Dengue occurred in Delhi. Thus Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi invited Dr. Mahender Dutta, President IPHA, Delhi Branch and former MHO for suggesting improvement in functioning of Health Services under MCD. As suggested by President IPHA, an expert Committee under his chairmanship was constituted. The Committee is popularly called as Pattanayak Committee. Said Committee made its report available in January 1999. One of the recommendations contained in said report was integration of Malaria Vaccination & Health Inspector Cadres at Zonal level. Accordingly in the year 2001, MCD decided to integrate Vaccination & Health Inspector cadre while Malaria was kept as a separate cadre. Representations made by General Secretary, MCD Health Employees Union, MHO for integration of Malaria, Epidemiology & Public Health cadre was turned down by Commissioner, MCD. The said decision of Commissioner was conveyed vide his letter No. PA/MHO/2005/716 dated 06.12.2005. In the year 2005, MCD revised pay scale of Malaria & Public Health Staff. Malaria Inspectors & Assistant Malaria Inspectors in MCD filed WP (C) No. 9593/2006 before Honble Delhi High Court questioning the Resolution No. 637 passed by Standing Committee dated 23.03.2005 and office order dated 31.05.2005 in terms of which pay scale of Malaria and Public Health Staff were revised. In the said petition, Malaria Inspectors and Assistant Malaria Inspectors claimed pay scales as recommended by Pattanayak Committee. Subsequently, said petition was transferred to this Tribunal and was registered as TA No. 266/2009. The grievance of Malaria Inspectors in TA 266/2009 was against non grant of same pay scale to them as was granted to Vaccinator. Taking a view that the Pattanayak Committee had recommended re-designation of Malaria Inspector as Health Inspector/Vaccination Inspector, Malaria Inspectors cannot be denied pay parity with Vaccinator, learned Tribunal allowed aforementioned TA giving direction to Commissioner, MCD to consider the grievance of Assistant Malaria Inspectors and Malaria Inspectors for bringing them at par with re-designated Vaccination cadre in the matter of pay scale by a speaking order keeping in view the recommendations of Pattanayak Committee. The operative portion of the order passed in TA 266/2009 reads as under:-
8. Resultantly, this TA is allowed to the extent that respondent, i.e. Commissioner, MCD shall now consider the grievance of applicants for bringing them at par with re-designated Vaccination cadre in the matter of pay scale by a speaking order to be passed, keeping in light Patnayak Committee, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that a decision is taken in favour of the applicants the same may be placed before the House for being giving effect to. No costs. In implementation of aforementioned order dated 14.05.2009 passed by this Tribunal, respondents passed order dated 18.05.2011 making it clear that the pay scale admissible to Malaria and Vaccination staff had already been maintained by the department. Relevant excerpts of order dated 18.05.2011 read as under:-
After consideration of above facts and circumstances it is observed that parity in respect of Pay Scale to Malaria and Vaccination Staff has already been maintained by the department as both the cadres are in similar grades/pay scales and as such hierarchical set up of both the cadres with pay scales are as under:-
VACCINATION CADRE OF PH WING MALARIA CADRE OF ANTI
MALARIA WING
Vaccinator (Now Asstt. Public Health Asstt.Malaria Inspector:
Inspector): Rs.4000-6000 (Pre-revised)
Rs.4000-6000 (Pre-revised)
Vaccination Inspector (Public Health Malaria Inspector
Inspector) & Vaccinator Rs.5000-8000(Pre-revised)
( Now P.H.I)
Rs.5000-8000 (Pre-revised)
Chief Vaccination Inspector (Chief Senior Malaria Inspector
Public Health Inspector Rs.5500-9000 (Pre-revised)
Rs.5500-9000 (Pre-revised)
xxxxxxxxxxxxx Asstt.Malaria Officer
Rs.6500-10500(Pre-revised)
Thus the party is being maintained in both the cadres. The equivalent posts in the both cadres are in the same scale as mentioned in the table hereinabove.
After considering the above facts and circumstances claim of applicants for grant of pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 to Assistant Malaria Inspectors at par with Vaccinators (designated as Public Health Inspectors)is not tenable as the Vaccinators who were discharging the duties of Inoculator and Immunizer, were given the Pay Scale of Rs.330-560 (Pre-revised) w.e.f. 23.05.1981 on the analogy of Inoculators and LIIVs on the basis of equal work equal pay incompliance of the orders of the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-1 in Award passed in I.D.No. 253/83 on dated 23.09.1988 and were designated as PHIs.
MCD understood the order passed by this Tribunal in TA 266/2009 as a direction for integration of Malaria cadre with Public Health Cadre as per recommendations of Pattanayak Committee. Accordingly it constituted a review Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. S.Pattanayak. Other members of the committee were Dr. Mehender Dutta as well as representative from MAMC. Review Committee meeting was held on 29.08.2009 to re-consider the recommendations made by Pattanayak Committee in the year 1999. Said Review Committee made following recommendations:-
1. Integration of staff of Anti Malaria Operations along with Health staff.
2. The Veterinary services, School Health Services, Primary Health Care and various National Programmes including National Immunization Programme under Public Health Services should be part of Public Health Services. For organization of these services, MCD may adopt a pattern of other Corporations like Mumbai Corporation and Bangalore Corporation. The Committee suggested that a team of officers along with experts may visit Mumbai and Bangalore Corporation to study the pattern of delivery of Public Health Services and suggest the Integration following the pattern of these Corporations.
3. The Pattanayak Committee in the year 1999 had suggested sub division of each Municipal ward into two Public Health Circles. Since previous wards have already been divided and each public health circle is now independent ward, it was suggested to implement all health activities in an integrated manner by integrating the staff at ward level. In view of aforementioned recommendations, Preamble No.F.33/Health/1654/C&C dated 25.11.2009, titled Order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 14.05.2009 passed in TA No. 266/2009 passed the judgment for placing the matter before the Corporation for final decision was placed before MRPH Committee for its acceptance. MRPH Committee constituted a sub-committee which further recommended for posting of 2 Health Inspectors per ward after merging two cadres. Sub-committee also recommended for framing Recruitment Rules for new post and promotion of all such APHIs & AMIs who had completed 12 years in such capacities. Questioning the aforementioned preamble, APHI/PHIs filed OA 180/2010 before this Tribunal ( Rajinder Prasad Sharma & Ors Vs. MCD & Ors). In the said OA, this Tribunal passed order dated 1.10.2010 staying the operation of proposal/preamble dated 25.11.2009. In the meantime MRPH Committee passed resolution no. 6 dated 2.03.2010 making recommendation to Corporation for approval of proposal/preamble as contained in Commissioners letter No.F.33/1654/Health/C&C dated 25.11.2009 with such modifications as suggested by aforementioned sub-committee. Said recommendations of MRPH was accepted by Corporation vide resolution No. 920 dated 16.03.2010. Such steps taken by MRPH Committee/Corporation resulted in filing of CP 238/2010 in OA 180/2010. In reply to said Contempt Petition filed before this Tribunal, it was specifically stated that MCD would not implement any decision taken by the House/Corporation by resolution No. 920 dated 16.03.2010 till the final outcome of OA 180/2010. Further, vide order dated 19.04.2010, Commissioner, MCD kept the implementation of said resolution No. 920 (item No. 78) dated 16.03.2010 in abeyance till the disposal of OA 180/2010.
2. OA 180/2010 as also CP 1238/2010 together with MA 77/2010, 541/2010 and MA 1014/2010 came to be decided in terms of order dated 1.10.2020. Relevant excerpts of the order read as under:-
to struck a balance between the rights of both the cadre and to avoid any heartburning within the cadre when a methodology could be adopted by which the relief claimed in the TA could be accorded to Malaria staff and would not affect in any manner the cadre of APHI & PHI is the safest course which should now be adopted by the respondent.
In view of above, when the resolution has already passed by the Corporation, we now direct disposal of this OA with a direction to the respondents that towards the compliance of directions in TA No. 266/2009, any methodology which brings the Malaria cadre at par only in the scales without even referral to the Pattanayak Committee should be adopted to avoid any frustration with APHI and PHI cadre, as the ultimate goal which is to be achieved, in the interest of justice, is a compliance of TA in substantial and also the removal of any difficulties which shall adversely affect the rights of the applicants in the present OA. The respondents shall now consider these observations of the Tribunal by adopting an apt methodology and pass such an order which would not be in contravention with any other category or cadre and satisfied on compliance the directions of the Tribunal in TA 266/2009. Till then, the order on 25.11.2009 as approved by the house shall remain on hold. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this, CP and MAs pending are disposed of accordingly.
As has been noted above, keeping in view the order dated 1.10.2010 passed in OA 180/2010 and also order dated 14.05.2009 passed in TA 266/2009, MCD had passed order dated 18.05.2011. For easy reference, relevant excerpts of aforementioned order are extracted hereinbelow:-
The Honble CAT has passed orders dated 01.10.2010 in the matters of Rajinder Prasad Sharma & Ors Vs.MCD &Ors, OA No. 180/2010, CP-238/2010, MAs No.77, 541 and 1014/2010. The main operative paras of the orders of the Honble CAT dated 01.10.2010 are re-produced as under:-
8. In view of above, when the resolution has already passed by the Corporation, we now direct disposal of this OA with a direction to the respondents that towards the compliance of directions in TA No. 266/2009, any methodology which brings the Malaria cadre at par only in the scales without even referral to the Patnaik Committee should be adopted to avoid any frustration with APHI and PHI cadre, as the ultimate goal which is to be achieved, in the interest of justice, is a compliance of TA in substantial and also the removal of any difficulties which shall adversely affect the rights of the applicants in the present OA. The respondents shall now consider these observations of the Tribunal by adopting an apt methodology and pass such an order which would not be in contravention with any other category or cadre and satisfied on compliance the directions of the Tribunal in TA 266/2009. Till then, the order on 25.11.2009 as approved by the house shall remain on hold. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this, CP and MAs pending are disposed of accordingly. As per notified RRs for the posts in Vaccination Cadre, appointments, in the cadre are made at the entry level post of Vaccinator ( Now Called A.P.II.I) in the Pay Scale of Rs.4000-6000 (Pre-revised) and the Vaccinator ( Now called A.P.H.I) are promoted to the post of Vaccination Inspector ( Public Health Inspector) in the Pay Scale Rs.5000-8000 (Pre-revised) and Vaccination Inspector (Public Health Inspector) are promoted to the post of Chief Vaccination Inspector (Chief Public Health Inspector) in the Pay Scale Rs.5500-9000 ( Pre-revised).
Whereas, as per notified RRs for the posts, in Anti Malaria cadre, appointments are made at the entry level of Assistant Malaria Inspector in the Pay Scale Rs.4000-6000 (Pre-revised) and Assistant Malaria Inspectors are promoted to the post of Malaria Inspector in the Pay Scale Rs.5000-8000 (Pre-revised) and Malaria Inspectors are promoted to the post of Senior Malaria Inspector in the Pay Scale Rs.5500-9000 (Pre-revised) and Senior Malaria Inspectors are promoted to the post of Assistant Malaria Officer in the Pay Scale Rs.6500-10500 (Pre-revised). This clearly shows that the pay scales in both the cadres are similar at entry as well as promotional stages as per hierarchy of the post.
The Pay Scale of Vaccination Cadre in Epid. wing and Pay Scale of Malaria Cadre in Anti Malaria Operation Wing of Health Department in the 3rd, 4th and 5th Central Pay Commission and after revision by Corporation Resolution No. 84 dated 28.04.2005 are as under:-
Pay Scale in 3rd Pay Commission 01 (a) Assistant Malaria Inspectors Rs.330-560
(b) Vaccinators (Now A.P.H.I) 02 (a) Malaria Inspectors Rs.425-640
(b) Vaccination Inspectors (Now P.H.I)
(c) Vaccinator (Now P.H.I) 03 (a) Senior Malaria Inspector Rs.550-750
(b) Chief Vaccination Inspectors 04 (a) Anti Malaria Officers Rs.650-1200 Pay Scale of 4th Pay Commission
01. (a) Assistant Malaria Inspectors Rs.1200-2040
(b) Vaccinators ( Now A.P.H.I) 02 (a) Malaria Inspectors Rs.1400-2600
(b) Vaccination Inspectors ( Now P.H.I)
(c) Vaccinator( Now P.H.I)
03. (a) Senior Malaria Inspector Rs.1600-2900
(b) Chief Vaccination Inspectors 04 (a) Anti Malaria Officers Rs.2000-3500 Pay Scale in 5th Pay Commission
01. (a) Assistant Malaria Inspectors Rs.4000-6000
(b) Vaccinators ( Now A.P.H.I) 02 (a) Malaria Inspectors Rs.5000-8000
(b) Vaccination Inspectors (Now P.H.I)
(c) Vaccinator ( Now P.H.I)
03. (a) Senior Malaria Inspector Rs.5500-9000
(b) Chief Vaccination Inspectors
04. (a) Anti Malaria Officers Rs.6500-10500 It is pertinent to mentioned here that the pay scale for the post of Vaccinators was Rs.260-430 (in 3rd Central Pay Commission), revised to Rs. 950-1500 (in 4th CPC) and Rs.3050-4590 (in 5th CPC). The pay scale for the post of Vaccination Inspectors, Inoculators/Lady Health Visitors was Rs.330-560 ( in 3rd CPC), revised to Rs.1200-2040 ( in 4th CPC) and Rs.4000-6000 (in 5th CPC). Before December, 1978 this duty of cholera inoculation was being performed by Inoculators. The Vaccinators who were given special training regarding inoculation/immunization and perform the duties of Immunization/Vaccination which was being taken from Inoculators along with the duty of Birth and Death registration for which they were paid Rs.10/- p.m. extra for performance of this additional duty were given the Pay Scale of Rs.330-560 (Pre-revised) w.e.f. 23.05.1981 on the analogy of Inoculators and LIIVs on the basis of equal work equal pay incompliance of the orders of the POIT-I in Award passed in I.D.No. 253/83 on dated 23.09.1988.
Vaccinators appointed after 1998 had also approached to the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal for higher pay scale i.e. Rs.5000-8000 (Pre-revised) on the ground that other Vaccinators got higher pay scale. The Vaccinator who had performed duty of Inoculation/Immunization were given the pay scale of 330-560 by Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-I on the grounds that they were given special training and they performed the duties of Inoculators/Vaccinators and were designated as Public Health Inspector. The Vaccinators who were appointed after 1998 were in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 ( Pre-revised in 5th CPC) and revised to Rs.4000-6000 and was designated as Assistant Public Health Inspector as their duties and responsibilities are much lower than Public Health Inspector and they are assailing Public Health Inspectors, MCD is not granting them higher pay scale as they never worked as Inoculators & their claim for grant of higher pay scale has been turned down.
3. The issue of integration of Malaria cadre with Public Health cadre was again raised in the meetings of MRPH dated 18.07.2011. In the meeting, the members questioned non implementation of resolution No. 920 (item No. 78) dated 16.03.2010 passed by Corporation. As a result, Chairman MRPH directed MHO to send the file to higher authorities by the following day and ensure implementation of the same by 31.07.2011. The relevant excerpts of minutes of aforementioned meeting read as under:-
Shri Subhash Jain also talked about the merger of Health Inspector & Malaria Inspector as well as Assistant Malaria Inspector and stated that when the same has already been passed in the house, why not it has been implemented so far, it be explained.
At this, Municipal Health Officer apprised that a report in this regard will be placed before the Commissioner very soon.
Dr. Sanjeev Nayyar remarked that when all higher officers have given consent/concurrence for 2 Health Inspectors in each ward and this case is also not to be sent outside then why the same is being withheld. He desired the Chairman to give instructions that the same be must implemented till the next meeting. Shri Krishan Murari Jatav asserted that the implementation of the same be ensured by 31st July.
The Chairman ordered to the Municipal Health Officer to send the file to the higher authorities as early as tomorrow and respecting the sentiments of all members, the same be implemented by 31st July.
The Chairman wanted to know from officer of Veterinary Department that a good number of complaints regarding stray cattle are pouring in from Shahdara North Zone and what action is being taken against meat shops doing business in the open, it be explained. Questioning aforementioned minutes of the meeting, particularly the order of Chairman of MRPH to send file to higher authorities for implementation of resolution No. 920 ( item No. 78) dated 16.03.2010, applicants who are employed as APHI/PHI in MCD have filed present Original Application. In support of the prayer made in OA, Mr. Shyam Moorjani, learned counsel appearing for applicants has raised the following contentions:
Once the issue of merger of Malaria staff with Vaccination/PHI was closed in the year 2001 and again in the year 2005, Commissioner, MCD had turned down the request of General Secretary, MCD Health Employees Union for integration of Malaria staff with Public Health Staff, the said issue could not be re-opened.
The order passed by this Tribunal in TA 266/2009 was misunderstood by MCD and it was only in misunderstanding of said order that review committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. S. Pattanayak was again constituted to re-consider the recommendations made by Pattanayak Committee in the year 1999.
When vide order dated 1.10.2010 passed in OA 180/2010 this Tribunal had made it clear that relief claimed in TA 266/2009 could not affect in any manner the cadre of PHI/APHI and direction to respondents in TA 266/2009 was only to bring Malaria cadre at par with Vaccination only in the matter of pay scale without making any reference to recommendation of Pattanayak Committee and further without causing frustration to Public Health Cadre and APHI, the resolution no. 920 dated 16.03.2010 passed in purported compliance of Tribunals order dated 14.05.2009 passed in TA 266/2009 had become inoperative and meaningless.
When in order dated 1.10.2010, this Tribunal had categorically viewed that the respondents would implement the order dated 14.05.2009 passed in TA 266/2009 without causing any frustration to PHI and APHI and by adopting methodology which should not be in contravention with interest of any other category, directions given by Chairman in the meeting of MRPH dated18.07.2011 for implementation of resolution no. 920 dated 16.03.2010 is in violation of aforementioned order dated 1.10.2010 passed by this Tribunal.
4. Respondents No.1 to 3 have opposed the Original Application by filing detailed counter reply dated 22.09.2011. In the said reply, MCD saliently contended as under:
(1) OA is barred by Sections 20 and 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as the same is filed against minutes of a meeting and not against any final order.
(2) This Tribunal has not put any restriction on the power of MCD to take a policy decision with regard to re-organization of cadre in public interest. The view taken in the MRPH meeting is only recommendatory and may not be accepted by the Competent Authority.
5. Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, appearing on behalf of newly impleaded respondents No. 4 to 14 joined Mr.R.K.Shukla, raising preliminary objection. He further submitted that it is for MCD to take a policy decision of merger of certain categories of its employees in the interest of better functioning of organization and this Tribunal should not interfere in such policy decisions. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 14 also submits that the applicants are unable to indicate as to how the merger of Health Inspector and Malaria Inspectors as well as Assistant Malaria Inspectors would adversely affect their interest.
6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. From the rival contentions of parties, following issues crop up for our determination:
(1) Whether the Review Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr. S.Pattanyak which met on 29.08.2009 to reconsider the recommendation made by Pattanayak Committee in the year 1999 was in digression of order dated 14.05.2009 passed by this Tribunal in TA 266/2009.
(2) Whether the direction of Chairman or MRPH given in MRPH Committee meeting dated 18.07.2011 to implement the resolution no. 920 dated 16.03.2010 by 31.07.2011 is in disregard of order dated 1.10.2010 passed by this Tribunal in OA 180/2010.
(3) Whether the OA can be dismissed as pre-mature.
7. As far as first issue is concerned, we note that in the counter reply filed on behalf of respondents no 1-3, it is admitted that after consideration of recommendation of report of Pattanayak Committee submitted in January 2001, MCD had decided to integrate Vaccination & Health Inspector cadre while Malaria cadre was kept separate. In the said reply, it is further submitted that the department interpreted the decision in TA 266/2009 as direction for integration of Malaria cadre with public health cadre as per recommendation of Pattanayak Committee and with such understanding only, a review committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr. S.Pattanayak which recommended integration of staff of Anti Malaria Operation along with Public Health staff. Admittedly, based on recommendation of Pattanayak Committee (review) constituted by MCD, having an impression that they were required to do so in terms of order passed in TA 266/2009, Preamble No. F-33/Health /1654/C&C dated 25.11.2009, titled order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 14.05.2009 passed in TA No. 266/2009 passed the judgment for placing the matter before the Corporation for final decision was placed before MRPH Committee for acceptance. Thereafter, MRPH Committee, on 02.03.2010, vide resolution No. 6, recommended to Corporation for approval of the proposal contained in Commissioners letter no. F.33/165/Health/C&C dated 25.11.2009. Accordingly the above recommendation of MRPH Committee was accepted by Corporation vide resolution no. 920 dated 16.03.2010. Relevant excerpts of counter reply filed on behalf of respondents 1-3 read as under:-
In 2001, after considering the recommendations of Pattanayak Committee, it was decided to integrate vaccination & Health Inspector cadre and Malaria cadre was kept separate. In 2005, with the approval of Corporation, pay scales of Malaria and Public Health Staff were revised vide office order no. ADC (Health)/2005/3260 dated 31.5.2005. Aggrieved by these orders Ram Kumar and others of Malaria staff filed a writ petition, WPC No. 9593/06 in Delhi High Court which was later transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal as TA No. 266/2009. Similarly some of the APHIs in the matter of Vinod Kr & others also filed an OA No. 418/2010, MA N0. 3136-37 before Honble CAT for grant of higher pay scale as applicable for PHIs. Honble CAT in TA No. 266/2009 passed the orders. The operative para of order is reproduced as under:-
Resultantly, this TA is allowed to the extent that respondent, i.e. Commissioner, MCD shall now consider the grievances of applicants for bringing them at par with re-designated Vaccination cadre in the matter of pay scale by a speaking order to be passed, keeping in light Patnayak Committee, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that a decision is taken in favour of the applicants the same may be placed before the House for being giving effect to. No costs. The department interpreted the above decision of the CAT as a direction for integration of Malaria cadre with Public Health Cadre as per recommendations of Pattanayak Committee. Accordingly a review committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr. S. Pattanayak. Other members of the committee were Dr. Mahender Dutta, Dr. Dev Raj, all Ex-MHOs as well as representative from MAMC, DHA and MHO. A meeting of the review committee was held on 29.08.2009 to re-consider the recommendations made by Pattanayak Committee in year 1999. The committee made following recommendations:
1. Integration of staff of Anti Malaria Operations along with Health staff.
2. The Veterinary services, School Health Services, Primary Health Care and various National Programmes including National Immunization Programme under Public Health Services should be part of Public Health Services. For organization of these services, MCD may adopt a pattern of other Corporations like Mumbai Corporation and Bangalore Corporation.
3. The Pattanayak Committee in the year 1999 had suggested sub division of each Municipal ward into two Public Health Circles. Since previous wards have already been divided and each public health circle is now independent ward, it was suggested to implement all health activities in an integrated manner by integrating the staff at ward level.
Based on the above recommendations Preamble No.F-33/Health/1654/C&C dated 25.11.09, titled Order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 14.05.2009 passed in TA No. 266/2009 passed the judgment for placing the matter before the Corporation for final decision was placed before MRPH Committee for accepting the above recommendations of Pattanayak Committee. PHIs, aggrieved by the preamble/proposal filed a court case titled Rajender Prashad Sharma & Others v/s K S Mehra, Commissioner MCD & Others. Honble CAT vide order dated 20.01.2010, stayed the operation of the proposal initiated by respondent MCD on 25.11.2009 ( i.e. the preamble). MRPH Committee on 0203-2010 vide resolution No.6 recommended to the Corporation for approval of the proposal as contained in Commissioners letter No. F.33/1654/Health/CV&C dated 25.11.2009 with modification s suggested by Sub Committee as detailed above. The above recommendations of MRPH committee were accepted by the Corporation vide resolution No. 920 dated 16.03.2010. Questioning the aforementioned letter dated 25.11.2009, certain APHI & PHI filed OA No. 180/2010 before this Tribunal. Vide order dated 20.01.2010 passed in aforementioned OA, the operation of proposal initiated by MCD was stayed. Finally, vide order dated 1.10.2010 passed in OA 180/2010, this Tribunal made it clear that the relief claimed in TA 266/2009 granted to Malaria Staff could not affect in any manner the cadre of APHI and PHI. In the said order, it was further made clear that MCD was to comply with the directions in TA 266/2009 by adopting any methodology which could brings the Malaria cadre at par with health cadre only in the matter of pay scale without any reference to Pattanayak Committee. Thus the order dated 1.10.2010 had made it clear that the order passed in TA no. 266/2009 had the effect of giving parity to Malaria cadre with APHI & PHI cadre in the matter of pay scale and the recommendations of Pattanayak Committee was not to be acted upon and at the same time the interests of APHI and PHI were not to be frustrated or contravened. After the aforementioned order dated 1.10.2010, respondents have passed detailed order dated 18.05.2011 in implementation of order passed in TA no. 266/2009 and also the orders passed in OA no. 180/2010. The said order is available on record as Annexure A-7 to OA. From item No.5 placed on record as Annexure-AA to rejoinder filed on behalf of applicants, it appears that on representation from General Secretary, MCD Health Employee Union, MHO vide letter No. PA/MHO/2005/716 dated 06.12.2005, conveyed that Commissioner, MCD had turned town the request of General Secretary, MCD Health Employee Union for integration of Malaria cadre with Public Health Cadre. Relevant excerpts of said item read as under:-
In 2001, after considering the recommendations of Pattanayak Committee, it was decided to integrate vaccination & Health inspector cadre and Malaria cadre was kept as a separate cadre. On representation from General Secretary, MCD Health Employee Union, MHO vide letter No. PA/MHO/20005/716 dated 06.12.2005, conveyed that Commissioner has turned down the request of integration of Malaria, Epidemiology and Public Health Cadre and no further correspondence may be made in this regard. As can be seen from order dated 14.05.2009 passed in TA 266/2009, this Tribunal had directed MCD to consider the grievance of applicants to bring them at par with re-designated Vaccination cadre in the matter of pay scale. In the said OA there is no direction issued to MCD to integrate Malaria cadre with Public Health Cadre, rather when in implementation of the directions contained in aforementioned order as a command for integration of aforementioned cadres, the proposal dated 25.11.2009 was initiated for integration, the same was stayed by this Tribunal in terms of order dated 20.01.2010 passed in OA 180/2010. Finally vide order dated 1.10.2010 passed in aforementioned OA 180/2010, this Tribunal made it clear that the directions contained in TA 266/2009 would stand complied with by granting parity in pay to Malaria cadre with Public Health Inspector cadre and the Pattanayak Committee was not required to be referred to. It is an admitted position that when in the year 1999, Pattanayak Committee had recommended for integration of Malaria cadre with Public Health cadre, MCD decided to integrate Vaccination and Health Inspector cadre but consciously decided that Malaria cadre was to be kept as a separate cadre. Moreover, the representation of General Secretary, MCD Health Employees Union, MHO for integration of Malaria cadre with Health cadre was turned down by Commissioner MCD vide letter No.PA/MHO/2005/716 dated 06.12.2005. Thus there is no doubt left that the MCD made its own decision to keep Malaria cadre separate from health inspector cadre despite recommendations made by Pattanayak Committee in the year 1999 and only by mis-understanding, the order passed by this Tribunal in TA 266/2009 as direction for integration of the said cadre, they had constituted review Pattanayak Committee to examine the issue. Thus we conclude that the decision taken by respondents to integrate Malaria cadre with health cadre was in digression of orders passed by this Tribunal in TA no. 266/2009. Once vide order dated 20.01.2010 this Tribunal had stayed the proposal of Pattanayak Committee dated 25.11.2009, it was the MCD which placed proposal before the standing committee through MRPH for withdrawal of aforementioned order dated 25.11.2009 and Corporation resolution no. 920 dated 16.03.2010. Finally in order dated 1.10.2010, this Tribunal had clarified in that the order passed in TA No. 266/2009 was to bring Malaria cadre at par with APHI and PHI in the matter of pay scale and said direction could be implemented without reference to Pattanayak Committee. In the circumstances, after the order passed dated 1.10.2010 by this Tribunal in OA 180/2010, there was no scope left to further digress the order passed in TA 266/2009 by taking a decision in minutes of the meeting of MRPH and to resolve to send the file to higher authorities for implementation of resolution No. 920 dated 16.3.2010.
8. In view of the finding recorded hereinabove, we also come to a conclusion that the order passed by Chairman, MRPH to send the file to higher authorities to implement the resolution passed by the House to merge Health inspector and Malaria inspector as well as Assistant Malaria Inspector was in disregard of the order passed by this Tribunal in OA 180/2010. In the said order, this Tribunal made it clear that the order passed in TA 266/2009 could be implemented by granting parity in pay to Malaria cadre with Public Health cadre. Correctly understanding the order passed by this Tribunal, MCD had passed detailed order dated 18.05.2011 (supra).
9. As far as plea of OA being pre mature is concerned, we find that in digression of order passed by this Tribunal in TA 266/2009, proposal was initiated for integration of Anti Malaria operations with public health staff. Said proposal was cleared by MRPH dated 2.03.2010 vide resolution no. 6. The recommendation of MRPH was accepted by the House of the Corporation vide resolution no. 920 dated 16.03.2010. In the meeting dated 18.07.2011, Chairman MRPH had directed for sending the file to higher authorities to implement the decision of integration of Malaria cadre with Public Health Cadre by 31.07.2011. Thus despite clarification by this Tribunal in its order dated 1.10.2010 in TA 266/2009, MRPH committee took a decision to implement resolution no. 920 dated 16.03.2010. As such, it cannot be viewed that present OA is pre-mature. Such plea raised by respondents is accordingly rejected.
10. In counter reply filed on behalf of respondents 1-3, it has been pleaded that respondents can always take policy decision to integrate Anti Operation staff with health staff. As far as such plea raised on behalf of MCD is concerned, it is stare decisis that question relating to constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India. Likewise, the State, by appropriate rules, is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute the pattern and cadres of service as may be required from time to time. In the case of P.U.Joshi Vs. the Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Ors ( 2003) 2 SCC 632. Honble Supreme Court ruled as under:-
10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by additional/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other condition of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.
11. Similarly in the case of S.P.Shiv Prasad Pipal Vs. Union of India and Ors 1998) 4 SCC 598, Honble Supreme Court viewed that the merger etc. is policy decision and cannot be interfered with by the Court. Relevant para 19 reads as under:-
19. However, it is possible that by reason of such a merger, the chance of promotion of some of the employees may be adversely affected, or some others may benefit in consequence. But this cannot be a ground for setting aside the merger which is essentially a policy decision. This Court in Union of India vs. S.L.Dutta (supra) examined this contention. In S.L.Dutta case (supra) a change in the promotional policy was challenged on the ground that as a result, service conditions of the respondent were adversely affected since his chances of promotion were reduced. Relying upon the decision in the State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni (supra) this Court held that a mere chance of promotion was not a condition of service and the fact that there was a reduction in the chance of promotion would not amount to a change in the conditions of service. Likewise in State of West Bengal Vs. Souwen Basu and Ors 2002 (1) ATJ High Court Calcutta page 477. Honble High Court ruled that it is for a Government to lay down the service conditions for the incumbents and Court cannot interfere with such a policy decision and direct Govt. to frame rules and provide necessary channels for promotion.
However, when amalgamation of employees falling in different department/categories takes place, critical question of fixation of their seniority arise. Recruitment to various posts in different cadre is regulated by separate set of Recruitment Rules. The amalgamation of employees from one cadre into another stream without amending RRs may sometime be questioned. Thus it is often advised that before amalgamation of cadres/services/ departments, RRs should be suitably amended or fresh RRs for the cadre to be created by amalgamation of different cadres should be framed. The incumbent of the post in a cadre, sought to be merged with different cadre, would never like to loose benefit of past service rendered by them in their own cadre. Similarly the incumbents in the cadre with which a different cadre is sought to be merged would also not accept the relegation of their position in the seniority list. In such circumstances, proper care and caution need to be taken while doing the exercise of merger of staff in different seniority zone/cadre. In the case of Bach Raj Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., JT 2001 (10) SC page 45, Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed as under:
(10) Even without any rules governing such conditions, it is absolutely clear that when an employee comes on his own request on transfer from one cadre to the other, he should normally be borne at the lowest in the transferred cadre on that date unless there exists any rules which confer the benefit that his past services also could be taken into account. It is settled principle of law that anybody who is not appointed to a cadre in terms of the Recruitment Rules, he is not entitled to benefits of service rendered by him before being appointed in accordance with the rules in such cadre. In the case of Bimlesh Tanwar Vs. State of Haryana, 2003(5) SCC page 604, it has been held that the seniority is not a fundamental right and it is merely a civil right. In the case of Raman Kutty Guptan Vs. Avara 1994 (2) SCC page 642, it has been held that there is no fundamental right in regard to counting of past service and the past service can be taken into consideration only when the rules permit the same or where a special situation exist, which would entitle the employee to benefit of past service.
In the case of Ram Zanam Singh Vs. State of UP, 1994(2) SCC page 622, it has been held as under:
It is now almost settled that seniority of an officer in service is determined with reference to tbhe date of his entry in the service which will be consistent with the requirement of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Of course, if the circumstances so require a group of persons can be treated a class separate from the rest for any preferential or beneficial treatment while fixing their seniority. But, whether such group of persons belong to a special class for any special treatment in matters of seniority has to be decided on objective consideration and on taking into account relevant factors which can stand the test of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Normally, such clarification should be by statutory rule or rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The far-reaching implication of such rules need not be impressed because they purport to affect the seniority of persons who are already in service. For promotional posts, generally the rule regarding merit and ability or seniority-cum-merit is followed in most of the services. As such the seniority of the employee in the later case is material and relevant to further his career which can be affected by factors, which can be held to the reasonable the rational. Following the aforementioned judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of Indu Shekhar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors., 2006 (8) SCC page 129, viewed that the state was within its right to impose the condition and when such condition is accepted, one can not turn around and say that the condition was illegal. Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that the grant of benefit of past service is not proper. Hon'ble Supreme Court further viewed that when there was no provision in the Recruitment Rules for absorption/induction through a particular method and the induction is made in deviation of rules, the beneficiary of such induction can not be entitled to benefit of past service.
In the case of Madan Gopal Garg Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 1995(6) JT page 189, Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that when somebody is appointed in a cadre against a quota which is not meant for him, he can not get the benefit of service rendered by him against a post in excess of quota.
Similarly, as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P Bhaskaran & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1995(9) JT 285, in special circumstances, even seniors may become junior, when such seniors proceed to move for their personal convenience. In the case of Chief of Naval Staff & Anr. Vs. G. Gopalan Pillia, 1996 (1) SCSLJ page 221, Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that where appointment to a particular post is not made in accordance with rules, the service rendered on the post before being appointed as per rules can not be taken into account for the purpose of seniority. Similarly, in the case of Union of India Vs. SS Uppal & Ors., 1996(1) JT 258, Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that the seniority in a service can be determined only with reference to date of induction in such service and the weightage in seniority can not be given retrospective effect. In the case of VP Srivastavs & ors. Vs. State of MP, 1996(2) JT page 374, Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that when the respondents were not appointed in accordance with rules, they can not be placed above those who are appointed in accordance with the rules. In the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Balwant Singh, 1996(2) SCSLJ page 108, Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that the seniority can be counted only from the date of joining the service. In the case of MSL Patil, Asst. Conservator Kohlahapur, Sohlarpur (Mah) Vs. State of Maharastra, 1996(10) JT page 334, Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that one who is not appointed to a post in accordance with the rules and on the basis of prescribed quota is not entitled to benefit of service rendered on a post in deviation of Recruitment Rules for the purpose of seniority. Similarly, in the case of UP Secretariat UDA Association Vs. State of UP & Ors., 1997(2) JT page 461, Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that one is entitled to benefit of service rendered on a post only from the date when he is entitled to hold the post in accordance with the rules. In the case of RK Sethi & Ors. Vs. ONGC & ors. 1997(2) JT page 201, Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that the Telex Operator on their merger with AG II are not entitled to benefit of their past service. In the case of State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Harnam Singh & Ors. 1997(2) SCSLJ page 164, Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that the drawing teachers in the district board and zila prashid are to be treated as fresh entrants in the service on the school being taken over by the Government and they are not entitled to benefit of their past service for the purpose of seniority and pension. In the case of M. Hara Bhupal Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1997 (3) JT page 397, Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that when method of recruitment to the post of PS and Section Officer is different, the two posts are not analogous the Tribunal right in denying seniority as claim and the PS was entitled to benefit of service as Section Officer only from the date of his absorption. In the case of Jagdish Patnayak Vs. State of Orisa, 1998(3) JT page 105, Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that the benefit of service for the purpose of seniority can be given only from the date of appointment to such service. In the case of Sohan Singh Vs. State of Punjab ,1998(3) ATJ page 408, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court viewed that a person who is granted selection grade on his transfer on request to other district is not entitled to the benefit of selection grade granted before his transfer. In the case of Sushma Mutreja Vs. UOI & Others (AIR2001 Supreme Court 2452), Honble Supreme court viewed that when a person is brought from one cadre to other and joins a new cadre then he must be treated to be lowest in the cadre on that date. In DOP&T O.M. No. 22011/7/86- Estt. (D) dated 3.7.1986, it is clearly mentioned that in case in which absorbee are not strictly in public interest, the transferred officers will be placed below all officers appointed regularly to the grade on the date of absorption.
In the case of Uday pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AISLJ, 1995 (1) 123, Honble Supreme court viewed that no retrospective appointment can be given to any incumbent so as to destroy the seniority of the respondents, who had entered the cadre much prior to their entry. The relevant portion of the Judgment read as under:-
5. ..That observation runs counter to the well established legal position that by executive act no such retrospective appointment can be given to any incumbent so as to destroy the seniority of employees who had entered the cadre much prior to their entry. Reliance placed on the decision of this court in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Pravat Kiran Mohanty & Ors, 1991(2) SCC 295, for submitting that the policy decision to merge the two branches of a cadre cannot be subjected to a Judicial review is also of no avail to learned counsel for the appellants for the simple reason that in that case the court was not concerned with the consideration about any retrospective effect of such a policy decision. Similarly, the decision of this court in Nirmal Kumar Chaudhary & Ors Vs state of Bihar & Ors. 1988 (Supp) Scc 107, which laid down that in the absence of any statutory rules seniority can be reckoned in the common cadre considering all the incumbents, also cannot be of any avail to the appellants as at the relevant time when the respondents entered the cadre as direct recruits, the erstwhile rules were already holding the field, and the appellants were not on the scene. On the other hand, pursuant to the merger of both there branches fresh rules were required to be framed under Article 309 of the Constitution even after 1.4.1975 and which were not framed till the appellate entered the merged cadre. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly placed reliance on the decision of this court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dr. Krishna Murthy & Orts. Etc. 1989(4) SCC 689 for submitting that there is no fundamental right of anyone to a particular seniority. This decision also cannot be of any assistance to the appellants as in the present case as rightly found by the High court if the appellants who entered the merged cadre of the senior Branch only on 2.11.1975 are to be treated as senior to the respondents who had entered the senior Baranch as directg recruits prior thereto, the respondents would clearly get their constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 14 & 16 violated While dealing with the issue of justification of merger/ demerger, what is to be seen is that what is merger, what can be object to be achieved by merger, in what circumstances the merger can be done, how merger is done, whether in order to give better promotional avenue to a particular category merger can be ordered, whether the present case can be called as a case of merger etc. What is merger:- Merger in fact is integration of grades/services/cadres etc. for better cadre management, to improve efficiency of service etc. As is noted by Honble supreme court in the case of Shiv Prasad Pipal Vs. UOI, in order to undertake the exercise of merger, prior to merger the cadre review committee should be appointed, there should be recommendation of such committee for merger, the recommendation of the committee should be approved by the competent authority and thereafter the new rules should be framed. In other words, when it is intended to merge different cadres, new rules are framed. As has been noted by Honble Supreme court in the case of State of UP & Another Vs. Dr. M.J. Siddiqui and others (AIR 1980 Supreme Court P. 1098) in case of merger old rules can not be made applicable to new cadre which was brought into force by merger of two cadres :- The relevant portion of the order after the conclusion is found in para 23(1) at pate 1107 read as under:-
To begin with, the rules of 1945 had absolutely no application to the new service. These rules applied to old PMS I service only and therefore, to a situation completely different from that which prevailed after merger of the two services on 1.11.1964. As the Government order merging the two services was also and order passed under article 309 of the Constitution , it had statutory force and was binding on all the officers of new service. Thus in order to do the exercise of merger, the new recruitment rules are framed for the cadre in which merger is to be done and thereafter the merger is carried in terms of such new rules. Then all those persons who opt to become member of new cadre may be treated as member of new service and there may be no quarrel of inter- se seniority amongst such entrants.
12. In the backdrop of aforementioned decision, we are of the view that the MCD can always take policy decision to integrate the Malaria staff with heath staff but while doing so, they should keep in view the legal position enumerated hereinabove.
13. Accordingly it is directed directed/held as under:-
(i) The direction given by Chairman, MRPH in MRPH meeting dated 18.07.2011 to send the file to higher authorities to implement the resolution no. 920 dated 16.03.2010 shall not be acted upon.
(ii) The recommendation of review Pattanayak Committee constituted in digression of order dated 14.05.2009 passed in TA no. 266/2009 shall not be acted upon. Consequently the proposal dated 25.11.2009 initiated by MCD to integrate Anti Malaria operations staff with Health staff, the resolution no.6 passed by MRPH on 02.03.2010 accepted by the House of the Corporation vide resolution no. 920 dated 16.03.2010 in misunderstanding of order passed by this Tribunal in TA 266/2009 shall also be not acted upon.
(iii) It would, however, be open to MCD to take decision independent of resolution no. 920 dated 16.03.2010 to integrate the anti malaria operations with health staff. While doing so, MCD would keep in view the fact that in 2001 it had not accepted the recommendation of Pattanayak Committee to integrate malaria cadre with Vaccination & health inspector cadre and vide specific order dated 6.12.2005, Commissioner, MCD had turned down the request of General Secretary, MCD Health Employees Union for integration of Malaria, Epidemiology and Public Health cadre.
(iv). In any case if the MCD finally integrates the Anti Malaria operations staff with health staff, it would ensure that the incumbents of various posts of APHI/PHI/CPHI & AMI/MI/SMI are kept in their separate seniority lists and allowed to progress in their career with the same opportunity as are available to them as on date. Future recruitment may be made by MCD in integrated cadre if they decide to merge malaria staff with health staff.
(v). If at all it decide to do so while undertaking exercise of integration of malaria staff with physical health staff, MCD would keep in view the legal position discussed hereinabove.
With the aforementioned directions/declarations, OA stands disposed of. No costs.
( A.K.Bhardwaj) ( Dr. Veena Chhotray )
Member (J) Member (A)
sk