Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. In their reply the respondents have not disputed the basic facts of the case. They have, however, contended that the applicant could not be promoted as she did not fulfill the minimum required 7 years service as Specialist Grade-I. Further, they have stated that the applicant is a Specialist and is governed by different set of conditions as compared to the general duty medical officers and cannot claim parity with them.

3.1 The respondents have denied that they are adopting different criteria for General Duty Medical Officers and Specialist doctors. However, they have stated that the date of initial implementation of DACP Scheme in Central Government was 05.04.2002 whereas in ESIC it was almost 6 years later on 01.03.2008. When the applicant represented against denial of promotion to her her case was examined in consultation with Ministry of Labour and Employment. That Ministry vide their letter dated 30.50.2012 clarified that grant of SAG scale to doctors working with ESIC who have been promoted as Specialist only on 23.06.2006 without fulfilling the minimum required service of 7 years as Specialist Grade-I may not be appropriate. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and DoP&T, who were also consulted, replied back to say that they were not concerned with the implementation of DACP Scheme in ESIC. Hence on the basis of clarification received from Ministry of Labour and Employment it was decided not to promote the applicant to SAG level without fulfilling the condition of minimum required service.

4.3 Further, we notice that when modified DACP Scheme was accepted it contained a clause that those Specialist Grade-I who had been promoted as such on the date of initial implementation of the Scheme can be granted SAG grade even if they had not rendered full 7 years of service in that grade. The respondents had stated that in consultation with Ministry of Labour they had decided not to implement this clause and insisted on 7 years service in the grade of Specialist Grade-I before promotion to SAG. The reason given by the respondents during arguments was that the date of initial implementation of the Scheme was different for Central Government and ESIC. Thus, for Central Government the date of initial implementation of this Scheme was 05.04.2002. Consequently, Specialist being promoted after being given benefit of this clause would have rendered almost 6 = years of service by the time the modified DACP Scheme was adopted w.e.f. 29.10.2008. However, as far as ESIC is concerned since the date of initial implementation of DACP was 01.03.2008, if this clause had been implemented then Specialist Grade-I with even 6 months service as such would have become eligible for promotion to SAG. Consequently, the Ministry of Labour had clarified that it would be appropriate to insist on the requisite service before promotion.

4.4 In our opinion, the stand taken by the respondents is totally justified. The DACP Scheme was primarily issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for Government doctors falling under that Ministry. Initially this Scheme was implemented from 05.04.2002. On 29.10.2008 it was extended to SAG grade as well. The modification introduced in this Scheme on 21.07.2009 further provided that those Specialists who were holding the Specialist Grade-I post on the date of initial implementation of the Scheme could be promoted to SAG without insisting on 7 years service. All these clauses were primarily intended for Government of India doctors with the full knowledge that the DACP Scheme has been implemented w.e.f. 05.04.2002. The ESIC subsequently decided to adopt this Scheme and they did so w.e.f. 01.03.2008. However, if the clause dealing with dispensing with 7 years service as Specialist Grade-I for promotion to SAG had been mutatis mutandis applied to ESIC also it would have given unintended extra ordinary benefits to the doctors of ESIC considering the fact that there was a gap of 6 years in the date of initial implementation of the Scheme in Central Government and ESIC. Such a situation was neither envisaged nor is desirable. Hence we agree with the stand taken by the respondents.