Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The contentions of the applicant are that the relief sought is covered by the Hon'ble Principal Bench verdict in OA 2563/2010, dt. 26.11.2013. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare has granted DACP for medical and Dental Doctors on 29.10.2008 and to practitioners of Indian System of Medicines and Homeopathy possessing the medical qualifications approved by the Central Council of Indian Medicines (CCIM)/ Central Council for Homeopathy (CCH) w.e.f. 29.10.2008 vide order dt. 25.04.2011. DACP upto SAG level was implemented for AYUSH Doctors on 5.09.2014 w.e.f. 29.10.2008 based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Principal Bench dt. 26.11.2013. The benefit was also extended to Doctors working in South, North and East Delhi Municipal Corporations based on the Hon'ble Principal Bench verdict in OA No.2712/2016 & batch dated 24.08.2017. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare issued OM dt. 3.11.2014 granting the benefit to Doctors both teaching and non-teaching, working in National Institutes of Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (NIA, NIUM, NIS AND NIH) w.e.f. 29.10.2008, after taking concurrence of the Ministry of Finance. Bye-laws 35 & 47, clearly state that FRSR, GFR & instructions of GOI apply mutatis mutandis to the CCRAS. The applicant's professed domain and qualifications are at par with General Duty Medical Officer of CGHS. Ministry of AYUSH is recruiting General Duty Medical Officer and Research Officer through UPSC and when these officers are posted in dispensaries they are called Medical Officers and when posted at Ministry, they are called Research Officers who do not attend to patient care. However, both are paid NPA and for both the officers, extension of DACP is applicable as per GOI orders issued from 2008 to 2014, which specify that work domain is important and not designation. Till 2011, doctors of CGHS belonged to CHS and there was no independent health service for AYUSH doctors. Officers are governed by the bye-laws of CCRAS. The CHS and CCRAS doctors are performing similar nature of duties and they cannot be discriminated based on designations. As per OM dt. 19.09.2019, the Research Officer designation is equivalent to Medical Officer working in the Clinical Unit. CCRAS is an autonomous body like NIA, NIS, NIH, etc. AYUSH doctors working in CHS, National Institutes & CCRAS possess same medical qualifications recognized under Indian Medical Council Act, 1956/ CCIM 1970 and perform similar nature of duties and their services are governed by the same set of GOI rules. Hon'ble Principal Bench judgment in OA in OA 2563/2010 i.r.o. grant of DACP was implemented for Ayush doctors working in CGHS dispensaries. Doctors working in Allopathy stream and doctors under Ministry of Ayush are at par as held by the Hon'ble Principal Bench in OA 2442/2017 in the case of Dr. K.S. Sethi v. Ministry of Ayush. Applicant is governed by the same set of rules of the Ministry of Ayush. In respect of CCRAS, if there are no rules in respect of a particular service matter, then rules applicable to CHS/ Ayush doctors apply to CCRAS doctors. Representations made were not responded to.

5. Respondents in the reply statement state that CCRAS is an autonomous body engaged in promoting research in Ayurvedic Sciences, under the Ministry of Ayush. Being an autonomous body, CCRAS is not under the direct control of the Govt. of India, but is governed by the Governing Council based on the bye-laws and Memorandum of Association, which cover all matters including service aspects. General Duty doctors and General Duty Medical Officers are recruited by UPSC whereas the applicant was recruited by CCRAS and the nature of duties are different. Therefore, the Recruitment Rules and the method of recruitment are different. Employees of CCRAS are governed by its bye-laws. The GOI has not extended the benefit of grant of DACP to CCRAS and unless GOI agrees, the benefit cannot be extended. The applicant was promoted based on hierarchy and not on all India competition. NPA is given on the basis of qualifications and the nature of duties performed is research. Clause 35 of the Bye-laws relate to superannuation and Clause 47 pertains to grant of allowances and hence, they have no relation to grant of DACP. The OMs dt. 29.10.2008, 25.04.2011 and 05.09.2014 are applicable to Central Government employees and not to CCRAS since they have not been endorsed to the CCRAS. Applicant is not on par with CGHS doctors, since the qualifications, appointing authority, method of recruitment, nature of duties and responsibilities are different. CGHS doctors are selected by UPSC. Doctors recruited by the Ministry of Ayush through UPSC are not designated as Research Officers and the nature of duties and responsibilities are not related to research work. Applicant has never worked under CGHS and the OMs dated 29.10.2008, 25.04.2011, 05.09.2014, 03.11.2014 are inapplicable to the applicant. Similarly, Hon'ble Principal Bench judgment is not relevant to the applicant. Applicant's cadre is involved in conducting research on diseases and observational studies. He is working in NIMH which does literary research and documentation. Applicant is not governed by CHS Rules and that CCRAS is an autonomous body whose rules are not published in official Gazette. Therefore the claim of the applicant that officers are governed by rules published in official Gazette is incorrect. Applicant is not into clinical practice and as a part of research, treatment of patients is taken up. Employees of CCRAS are not Govt. of India employees and hence, suo motu Ministry of Health & Family Welfare scheme of DACP implemented w.e.f. 29.10.2008 in respect of Medical & Dental doctors is inapplicable to CCRAS employees. Unless the Governing Council takes a decision, no order can be implemented. The Research/ Technical officers of CCRAS are not on par with CHS and further they cannot compare themselves with those working for NIH, NIS, NIUM, etc. as the nature of duties are separate. Hon'ble Principal Bench judgment is applicable to CGHS doctors. Applicant is not a CGHS/ Ayush doctor. Even the orders of the Hon'ble PB in OA No. 2712/2016, 2771/2016, 2946/2016, 4066/2016, 4192/2016 and 4189/2016, are not applicable to the applicant, since CCRAS is an autonomous body. The judgment pertains to doctors of CHS under different stream performing similar duty of patient care. In the instant case, there is a difference between Ayush doctors of Ministry of Ayush working under CHS versus CCRAS employees, an autonomous body engaged in research. No order issued pursuant to a court judgment by GOI can be made applicable unless a decision is taken to accept by the Governing Council. Applicant cannot compare himself with Dr. K.S. Sethi since she was directly working in the Ministry of Ayush whereas the applicant is neither an Ayush doctor nor working directly under the Ministry of Ayush. He works for CCRAS and nature of duties plus method of recruitment are different with those of Ayush/ CGHS doctors. Even the 7th CPC recommendations were extended when GOI decided to implement for CCRAS. In respect of DACP, Government of India has not extended the benefit of DACP. Applicant has not exhausted remedies available and did not wait for the reply to the representation submitted on 25.09.2019. In the meanwhile the matter has become sub judice.

Applicant filed a rejoinder stating that CCRAS comes under the administrative control of the Ministry of Ayush and the services of CCRAS employees are governed by the same set of laws as are applicable to the Central Government employees. CCRAS is functionally autonomous but comes under the ambit of CCS (CCA) Rules. The applicant submits that duties of general duty medical officers and doctors of CCRAS are different but the basis of recruitment, recruitment rules, qualifications and nature of duties are identical. The general conditions of service in relation to TA, Pension, DA, superannuation etc. are governed by the Rules of the Govt. of India. Bye-law 47 provides for adopting GOI rules if CCRAS has not framed any rules i.r.o. any particular issue. Appointment of the applicant is governed by the CCS (Conduct) Rules and CCS (CCA) Rule, as amended from time to time, by the Government of India. GOI did not endorse exclusive copies for implementation of CPCs to autonomous bodies. NPA is given because part of duty is clinical one and for possessing the required medical qualification. OMs cited are not endorsed to CCRAS, but to Ministry of Ayush as was the case in respect of CPC orders. CCRAS is also an autonomous body like NIS, NIH, NIUM, etc. like CCRAS and therefore, DACP implemented in these institutions by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare will apply to CCRAS as well. DACP is a part of 6th CPC and having implemented 6th CPC, a part of it cannot be ignored to be implemented. The mission of CCRAS has many parameters and not observational study. CCRAS also treats general public through OPD/IPD/ Specially designated clinics, implements National Health Programmes and analyzes the patient data generated through research studies for effective treatment. NPA is paid from 4th CPC onwards to doctors whose posts are clinical and for treating patients at large. 6th CPC implemented for autonomous bodies and CCRAS can be no exception. The decision not to grant DACP is hostile discrimination and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. The order of the Hon'ble Principal Bench in OA 2563/2010 dt. 26.11.2013 states that since the Government has accepted the 6th CPC recommendations, it has to follow it fully without any reservation. CCRAS has implemented 6th CPC and therefore, the DACP has to be implemented. In the case of Delhi Municipal Corporation, they have adopted CCS (CCA) Rules and similarly, as per CCRAS bye-laws, CCS (CCA) Rules apply mutatis mutandis. Therefore, when DACP is made applicable to Delhi Municipal Corporation pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Principal Bench in OA Nos. 2712/2016, 2946/2016 etc, the same judgment applies to CCRAS. Respondents have admitted that if the Governing Council decides, then GOI orders can be made applicable which means GOI orders are applicable to CCRAS.

Therefore, in our opinion, the finding of the tribunal that the posts of Sub- inspector in the BSF and Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police are not equivalent, is erroneous II. In the case of the applicant, he worked for NIIMH under CCRAS, which has its own bye-laws and is governed by a Governing Council/ Body. The Governing Council has the final say in regard to any decision pertaining to CCRAS. The independence in decision making is due to the fact that CCRAS was registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, with full autonomy. One cannot deny the fact that CCRAS is working under the aegis of Ministry of AYUSH and therefore, its directions are to be adhered to, is the repeated assertion of the applicant. In this direction, the applicant cited the bye-laws 35 & 47 of CCRAS.