Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member

2. The OA is filed in regard to enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 65 years.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant, who is a qualified doctor, is working as Director, National Institute of Indian Medical Heritage at Hyderabad, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (for short "CCRAS") under the Ministry of AYUSH. Applicant claims that as per bye-laws of CCRAS, his appointment is governed by CCS (CCA) Rules and by the laws applicable to Central Govt. employees. Ministry of AYUSH recruits General Duty Medical Officers/ Research officers. The officers when posted at the Ministry are designated as Research Officers and they are not involved in patient care, and on duty in CGHS, they don the designation of Medical Officer to treat patients. Applicant is on par with General Duty Doctor/ Medical Officer of CGHS. The applicant is aggrieved that he is illegally being superannuated on 31.10.2019 on attaining the age of 60 years although the age of retirement has been augmented for Allopathy and AYUSH doctors working in CGHS w.e.f. 31.5.2016 & 24.11.2017 respectively, to 65 years. Aggrieved, OA has been filed.

4. The contentions of the applicant are that the clauses 34, 35 and 47 of the bye laws of CCRAS are in his favour. Officers posted in the Ministry and in the CGHS clinics are paid NPA by treating both the posts as clinical. Therefore, cabinet decision taken on 27.9.2017 in regard to enhancement of retirement age to 65 years to improve service delivery, is equally applicable to Medical officers and Research Officers. The press note released subsequent to the cabinet decision is applicable to institutions working under the administrative control of respective Ministries with a reference to AYUSH doctors as well. CCRAS works under Ministry AYUSH. As per O.M dated 19.9.2019, Research Officer working in Ministry is equal to an officer working in a clinical unit. Designation is not the criteria but the qualification and work performed. Relief sought has been extended to doctors of CHS & New Delhi Municipal Corporation as well as doctors working under the respondents. Applicant is similarly placed performing similar nature of work and hence, cannot be discriminated. Govt. of NCT of Delhi has implemented the measure of amplifying the retirement age to 65 on 30.9.2016. Hon'ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal has provided the relief sought in different OAs to the doctors working in North, South and East Delhi Municipal Corporations. Bye-laws do not speak of retirement age and hence, as per Rule 14 of Recruitment Rules applicable to Central Civil Services shall apply. Gazette notification of DOPT dated 5.1.2018 does not distinguish the AYUSH doctors in terms of designation, nature of duties, institution etc. Doctors working for CHS, Ministry of AYUSH, CCRAS are inter-transferable in the same capacity and hence, there can be no difference amongst these doctors. Hon'ble Apex Court has equated veterinary doctors with Medical Officer and thereby, they are getting benefits as are extended to Allopathy and AYUSH doctors. As per the 5 th and 6th CPC reports and also as per Hon'ble Principal Bench judgment of this Tribunal in OA 2442/2017, doctors working under Ministry of AYUSH are at par with those working under Allopathy stream. Ministry of Shipping, Railways, Dept. of Higher Education, Autonomous Bodies have increased the retirement age, but not CCRAS. Hence, Courts/ Tribunals intervened and issued interim orders allowing those who approached to be continued in service.

Hence, the repeated argument of the applicant that the CCS (Pension) Rules shall be applicable to the CCRAS, an autonomous body, mutatis mutandis has to be laid to rest in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Delhi Court on the matter.

IV. Besides, the applicant emphasized the fact that there is no difference between Medical Officers working in CGHS/CHS and the Research Officers. This is incorrect since in regard to the mode of recruitment, nature of work etc. there is an ocean of difference. Research Officers are recruited by the CCRAS for its research work and the Medical Officers of CGHS/CHS who treat patients are selected by the UPSC. Rules of engagement are different. Duties, responsibilities and eligibility criteria for selection are different based on the recruitment rules/bye laws in respect of the cadres cited. Bye laws and the decisions of the Governing Body of CCRAS constitute the frame work in regard to the service conditions of the applicant. Rules framed by CCRAS gain primary importance in regulating the service matters of the applicant but not those laid for CGHS/CHS doctors. It is the Governing Body of CCRAS, considering its autonomous nature, which has to take the call in imbibing any rule applicable to Central Government servants and thereafter, approach the Ministry of AYUSH for concurrence as is seen in the case of implementation of 7th CPC recommendations in the respondents organization. True to speak, the CGHS/CHS doctors have a different job design/ description and therefore, it is farfetched to claim that the rules of CGHS/CHS doctors apply to the applicant for reasons given above. Even the rules cited by the applicant in the official gazette referred to by the applicant in para 4.15 of the OA nor the decision of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi in enhancing the retirement age of the Allopathy doctors as claimed at par 4.11 of the OA are of no consequence, since CCRAS is an Autonomous Body whose decision, which matters to enhance retirement age. In particular, focusing our attention to Rule 56(bb) adduced in the gazette notifications dated 5.1.2018 & 11.8.2018 dealing with superannuation on which the applicant has pinned his hopes, they speak of General Duty Medical Officers, Specialists included Teaching & Non Teaching and public health sub cadres of Central Health Services, Indian Railway Doctors, CHS, AYUSH and working under Ministry of AYUSH etc. The applicant is not covered under any of the categories since he is an employee of an autonomous research body which is placed in a different paradigm altogether with reference to recruitment rules, nature of duties, responsibilities and so on. Defacto, CGHS/ CHS doctors are involved in patient care whereas the applicant work domain is research work. The cabinet decision of 27.9.2017 to enhance retirement age was to improve patient care, academic activities and ensure effective implementation of National Health Programmes for delivery of health services. Nowhere, was the aspect of research work touched upon. Applicant is working as the Director of the National Institute of Indian Medical Heritage, which has a mandate for literary research and documentation. The work obviously done is in respect of conducting research and observational studies relating to Ayurvedic parameters and formulations. Thus applicant is not involved in any patient care whatsoever, which, in fact, is mostly the spirit of the cabinet decision referred to, for amplifying the retirement age. If at all, the applicant was involved in extending medical aid as part of Tribal Health Care Research Project, it was in pursuance of the research work done to study living conditions, dietetic habits, documentation of folklore claims as per material papers submitted as part of the annual report ending 31st march 2018, while seeking interim relief. Therefore, in sum and substance, the applicant's claim that since he is similarly placed like the CHS/CGHS etc doctors lacks logic. CCRAS rules apply to him lock, stock and barrel. In this regard, we take support of observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka made on 25.1.2001 in WP No.42833-43/1999(S), wherein CCRAS is a party, as under:

iii. Further, the relief of enhancing retirement age granted by the Hon'ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA 2442/2017 in the case of Dr K.S.Sethi cited by the applicant, cannot be extended to the applicant since Dr. K.S. Sethi was a AYUSH doctor working in the Ministry of AYUSH, whereas the applicant is not a AYUSH doctor and he finds himself in CCRAS, for which institution the Ministry of AYUSH has decided not to extend the benefit vide its letter dated 31.10.2017.

iv. Besides, applicant did refer to the orders of the Hon'ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal in different OAs cited in para 4.21 of the OA in respect of Doctors of Delhi Municipal Corporation to fortify his case. These judgments are not applicable to the case of the applicant since regulation 4 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 treats all doctors alike under different streams of medicine and all the service conditions applicable to the Central Government Employees have been made applicable to the officers and employees working under various municipal corporations. Such a blanket regulation is not available to cover the case of the applicant. MCD is statutory body whereas CCRAS is an autonomous body. It needs no elaboration that there can be no comparison between the employees of the two entities. The Governing body of CCRAS is the kingpin in deciding as to what is required to be done including norms of retirement. The decision of the Ministry of AYUSH communicated in letter dated 31.10.2017 is the Lakshmana rekha which CCRAS has decided not to transgress. We have gone through other cases wherein the applicants have been granted the relief for reasons of being involved in patient care unlike the applicant whose main work domain is research. Therefore, they would be of not help to the applicant.