Delhi High Court
Dr. Amitabh Misra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 May, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on 30.05.2012
+ W.P.(C) 3336/2012
DR. AMITABH MISRA & ORS. ... Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ...Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nalin Tripathi
For the Respondent : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2012 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.3057/2011
whereby their claim for benefits under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression
Scheme (DACP) in accordance with the Government of India Resolution
No.1/1/2008-IC dated 29.08.2008 and certain other office memoranda was rejected.
2. The petitioners are doctors and they are working as Medical Officers in
different Institutes under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The
petitioners sought the benefit of the said Government of India Resolution dated
29.08.2008 whereby the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme was
available for doctors working in the Central Government. Reliance has also been
placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the Office Memorandum dated
29.10.2008 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of
India. That OM, however, would be of no help to the petitioners because from the
language in the said OM itself, it is clear that scheme of DACP (Dynamic Assured
Career Progression) upto SAG level (Grade Pay of Rs.10000/- in Pay Band-4,
Rs.37400-67000) was extended to all Medical/Dental doctors in the Central
Government, whether belonging to Organized Service or holding Isolated Posts.
Admittedly, the petitioners are not medical doctors in the Central Government,
therefore, the said Office Memorandum dated 29.10.2008 would be of no help to
them.
3. On the contrary, we find that the Indian Council of Agricultural Research is
actually a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It has its
own set of bye-laws. Bye-law 30(a) is relevant for our purpose and the same reads
as under:-
"30 (a) Except in regard to matters for which specific
provisions has been made in the Rules, Bye-Laws,
Regulations or Orders made or issued by the Society, the
service and financial Rules framed by the Government of
India and such other rules and orders issued by the
Government of India from time to time, shall apply
mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Society in
regard to matters containing their service conditions."
4. All that the said bye-law indicates is that rules and orders of the Government
of India for its employees would apply to the employees of ICAR, mutatis
mutandis but, that would be only in cases where there are no specific provisions in
the rules, bye-laws, regulations or orders made by the ICAR. Thus, if there is any
specific provision made by the ICAR in any of its rules, bye-laws, regulations or
orders on the same subject pertaining to rules and orders of the Government of
India, it would be the former which would apply and not the latter. There is no
doubt that insofar as the doctors working in the Central Government are concerned,
the DACP Scheme has been extended to them. The only thing to be seen is
whether that scheme has been adopted by the ICAR or not. In this connection, we
may refer to the OM dated 03.10.2008, which has been issued by the ICAR. The
relevant portion of the said OM reads as under:-
"Insofar as ICAR as a whole is concerned, the revised
scales of pay as incorporated in Section 1 and II of Part
„A‟ of the First Schedule to the Rules ibid alone may be
adopted. ........"
5. It is immediately clear that insofar as the ICAR as a whole is concerned,
what has been adopted is only the revised scales of pay as incorporated in Sections
(I) and (II) of Part „A‟ of the First Schedule to the Rules. The word "alone" which
has been used in the above extracted portion is of a great significance. It implies
that only the revised scales of pay have been adopted and nothing else. The DACP
scheme has been provided in Sections (I) and (II) of part „A‟. But, the ICAR has
only chosen to adopt the revised pay scales by the use of the word "alone" in the
above extracted portion of the said OM dated 03.10.2008. This clearly means that
the ICAR have thought it fit not to adopt the DACP Scheme insofar as its medical
officers/technical employees are concerned.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners had sought to place reliance on a
decision of the High Court of judicature of Madras in the case of Union of India &
Ors. v. Dr. Deepak Sen & Ors.: W.P.(C) No.12209/2010 dated 12.01.2011.
However, that case is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as it pertains to doctors in
the Department of Atomic Energy where the department itself had implemented
and adopted the DACP scheme. In the present case, we have noted that the ICAR
has not adopted the DACP Scheme and it is also not a Department of the Central
Government but an autonomous society registered under the Registration of
Societies Act, 1860.
7. It may also be pointed out that there is, perhaps, a reason as to why the ICAR
did not adopt the DACP Scheme because the ICAR had implemented a time bound
promotion scheme whereunder a five yearly assessment promotion is done from
one grade to the next higher grade or advanced increments are granted to the
technical employees. It is perhaps because of the existence of this time bound
promotion scheme that the ICAR thought it fit not to adopt the DACP scheme of
the Central Government. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the ICAR has
consciously adopted only the revised scales of pay and has not adopted the DACP
Scheme which also fell within Sections (I) and (II) of Part „A‟ of the First Schedule
to the said rules, the petitioners can have no claim to benefits under the said DACP
Scheme.
8. As a result of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the petitioners are not
entitled to the benefits under the DACP Scheme which is available for doctors in
the Central Government. The Tribunal has also arrived at this very conclusion.
Consequently, the writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
MAY 30, 2012
rb
