Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

      (emphasis supplied)




W.P.(C) 2780/2011                                                     Page 4

8. The petitioner argues that the CAT did not appreciate that the Fifth CPC specifically recommended complete parity to Veterinary Officers with the GDMOs and Dental Doctors in terms of pay scales and career prospects. This was again endorsed by the Sixth CPC and by the Government in the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. The Fifth CPC did not make any specific recommendation for application of the DACP to Dental Doctors. Therefore, the DACP was granted to them on the basis of the principle of their complete parity with GDMOs - a logic which ipso facto entitles Veterinary Officers to the DACP in terms of pay scales, career progression etc. Denial of the benefits of the DACP to Veterinary Officers is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified suffering from a serious non-application of mind.

"Veterinary Officers requiring a degree of B.V.Sc. and A.H. along with registration in the Veterinary Council of India are to be placed on par with General Duty Medical Officers and Dental Doctors."

12. The petitioner, therefore, argues that the UOI was bound to enforce the complete parity principle and extend the benefit of the DACP to Veterinary Officers.

13. It is further argued that the reply to the RTI application filed by the Veterinary Officers Association confirmed that the Fifth CPC did not specifically recommend the application of the DACP to Dental Doctors, contrary to the claim made to that effect by the UOI, Ministry of Finance - Department of Expenditure in response to the request made by the Administrative Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fishing, to extend the benefits of time bound promotions under the DACP to Veterinary Officers. It follows that the implementation of the DACP with respect to Dental Doctors is on the basis of the "complete parity" principle and there is no reason to deny the same to Veterinary Officers. The Fifth CPC did not confine 'parity' within any specific contours and instead advocated complete parity in terms of pay scales and career prospects which necessarily includes promotions, status etc. The same principle was reiterated by the Fifth CPC without any rider. Therefore, the Veterinary Officers have been discriminated against and their Right to Equality under Art. 14 has been violated.

W.P.(C) 2780/2011 Page 8

17. For a proper appreciation of the controversy, it is essential to highlight the following, based on a perusal of the Fifth and Sixth CPC Reports. The first is that neither Report specifically recommended the application of the DACP to Veterinary Officers. The Fifth CPC stipulated "complete parity" in paragraph 55.291 between Veterinarians, and GDMOs and Dental Doctors in terms of pay scales and career prospects. This regime was deemed essential and necessary to be continued by the Sixth CPC. However, neither Report explicitly recommends the application of the DACP in terms, to Veterinary Officers. Secondly, in a similar - if not entirely identical manner, the Fifth CPC did not expressly recommend the application of the DACP to Dental Doctors. In paragraph 55.215, the Fifth CPC recommended the application of the mechanism to only GDMOs, Specialists and Super-Specialists. This fact was acknowledged by the respondent in paragraph 3-D of its counter reply. Dental Doctors received the benefit of the DACP vide Government Memo dated 25.08.2006. The Sixth CPC confirmed in paragraph 3.6.7 that the DACP (as recommended by the Fifth CPC) was implemented for CHS doctors and a few other cadres. These facts show that the CAT's finding that the Fifth CPC specifically recommended the application of the DACP to Dental Doctors- is without foundation and therefore, incorrect.

"The scheme of DACP is different from ACPS in the sense that the designation also changes under the former. The scheme, therefore, cannot be equated to that of ACPS. The scheme also does not suffer from any of the short-comings evident in the extant scheme of Assured Career Progression. Accordingly, DACP would need to be retained in its existing form. Further, the scheme would need to be extended to other categories of Doctors presently not covered under the scheme as similar career advancement has to be ensured for all Doctors whose basic work remains same irrespective of the organisation or service to which they belong. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that the DACP scheme recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission for different streams of doctors should be extended to all Doctors including those working in isolated posts. The promotions under DACP for other categories of Doctors will be guided by the same conditions as applied in case of Doctors working in Central Health Scheme."