Delhi High Court
Dr. J L Chaudhary vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 28 October, 2015
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10086/2015, CM APPL. No. 24712/2015
% Date of Judgment : 28.10.2015
DR. J L CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ashish Nischal, Advocate.
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Biji Rajesh, Advocate for Mr. Gaurang
Kanth, Advocate for NDMC/R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM APPL. No. 24712/2015
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exception.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W. P. (C) 10086/2015
3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 06.07.2015.
4. The petitioner was posted in the Public Health Cadre since
01.04.2004, however, subsequently he was formerly inducted in the
Public Health Cadre w.e.f. 01.07.2007. On 30.04.2007, the
respondent/Corporation issued a Corrigendum to the office order
dated 18.12.2006 wherein the age of superannuation of a Doctor in
the Public Health Sub-Cadre was enhanced from 60 years to 62
years. The petitioner, however, made a representation on 26.12.2011
to the Corporation with a request that his name be deleted from the
Public Health Cadre to General Duty Cadre. This request of the
petitioner was accepted on 01.02.2012 and petitioner was allowed to
go back to General Duty Cadre from Public Health Cadre. It is,
however, the case of the petitioner that despite his request for
deleting his name from the Public Health Cadre, he continued to
perform his duties in the Public Health Cadre as Chief Medical
Officer (CMO) Epidemiologist, City Zone upto his date of
superannuation i.e. 28.02.2014 at the age of 60 years. The petitioner
made a representation to the respondent requesting the respondent to
permit him to perform his duties upto the age of 62 years. As the
representation was rejected, petitioner filed an OA which was
dismissed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Learned Tribunal has considered the submissions made by the counsel
for the petitioner which have been reiterated before us today.
Tribunal has taken into consideration that the petitioner had made a
specific request by an application dated 26.12.2011 for reversion to
the General Duty Cadre and his name stood deleted as per the order
of MCD, which reads as under:
" Dr. J. L. Chaudhary had opted out the Public
Health Cadre and requested to be reverted back to
the GD Cadre vide his application dated
26.12.2011. The Competent Authority allowed his
reversion to the GD Cadre Vide Office Order No.
A.O. (Estt.)-IV/CED(M)/H.C.(M)III/(Medical)/
2012/380 dated 01-Feb-2012. Therefore, name of
Dr. J. L. Chaudhary is hereby, deleted from the
above recommendation of placement/promotion of
Medical Officer of Public Health Cadre.
This issues with the approval of the competent
authority."
7. The Corporation thereafter issued an office order dated 01.02.2012,
which reads as under:
"Dr. J. L. Chaudhary/Zonal Epidemiologist/City Zone
vide his representation dated 26.12.2011 has opted out
of Public Health Cadre and has requested to delete his
name from the list of GDMO I PH Cadre. He has
further requested to grant him financial upgradation
for the post of CMO (NFSG) Rs.14,300-18,300 w.e.f.
02/08/2009.
2. A meeting of a Screening Committee was held
on 21.04.2011 to consider the case of medical officers
for induction in the Public Health Cadre as per the
provisions of the existing Recruitment Regulations
(RRs). In the said meeting, the case of Dr. J. L.
Chaudhary was also considered for induction into the
Public Health Cadre as GDMC I PH w.e.f.
01/07/2007. Accordingly, he was inducted in the
Public Health Cadre consequent upon obtaining
approval of the competent authority and orders issued
vide Office Order No. Supdt.(M)/H.C. (M)-III/CED
(M.Cell)/2011/2677 dated 10/06/2011."
8. It is not in dispute that from the year 2011 till the date of
superannuation, the petitioner did not make any attempt to seek recall
of the request or the order dated 01.02.2012 which was passed by the
respondent consequent upon the request of the petitioner. There is no
explanation on the part of the petitioner as to why such a request was
not withdrawn.
9. Since, the petitioner himself has made a request for reversion to the
General Duty Cadre, the petitioner was well aware of the implication
of such reversion and after superannuation, the petitioner cannot be
now permitted to withdraw his application which had attained finality
during the period when he was in service. We find no infirmity in the
orders passed by the Central Administrative. Resultantly, the writ
petition is dismissed. No costs.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
OCTOBER 28, 2015 / gr
