Manipur High Court
Dr. Salam Kenny Singh vs The Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 21 March, 2025
Digitally signed by
KHOIROM KHOIROM
BIPINCHANDR BIPINCHANDRA SINGH IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Date: 2025.03.21
A SINGH 14:28:18 +05'30'
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 707 of 2022
1. Dr. Salam Kenny Singh, aged about 49 years, S/o
Salam Shyamananda Singh of Thangmeiband
Khomdram Selungba Leikai, PO & PS Lamphel,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795004.
.... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, Government of India,
having its office at Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi -
110011.
2. Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal
through its Director, having its Office at RIMS
Campus at Lamphel, PO & PS Lamphel, Imphal
West District, Manipur - 795004.
3. The Joint Secretary (NE), Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare, Government of India, having its
Office at Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.
.... Respondents
1. Dr. T. Kambiadkik, aged about 41 years, S/o T.
Chinkol, resident of Qtr No. 14, Type V, RIMS
Doctors Colony, PO & PS Lamphel, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795004.
2. Dr. S. Damrolien, aged about 44 years, S/o
Lamkhokhai Kipgen, resident of New Checkon
Maring Lane, P.O & P.S. Imphal East, Imphal East
District, Manipur-795005.
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 1
.... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, Government of India,
having its office at Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi -
110011.
2. Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal
through its Director, having its Office at RIMS
Campus at Lamphel, PO & PS Lamphel, Imphal
West District, Manipur - 795004.
3. The Joint Secretary (NE), Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare, Government of India, having its
Office at Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.
.... Respondents
1. Dr. Sunilkumar Singh Salam, aged about 49 years,
S/o Salam Ningthemjou Singh, resident of
Chingamakha Ningthoujam Leikai, Leewa Road,
P.O & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District,
Manipur - 795003.
2. Dr. Chabungbam Gyan Singh, aged about 45 years,
S/o Ch. Ibotombi Singh, resident of Heirangoithong
Maibam Leikai, P.O & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795003.
3. Dr. Yumnam Priyobarta Singh, aged about 45
years, D/o Yumnam Tombi Singh, resident of
Sagolband Moirang Leirak, P.O & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
4. Dr. Khagokpam Ambala Devi, aged about 47 years,
D/o (L) Kh. Amar Singh, resident of Awang
Kongpal Laishram Leikai, P.O & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005.
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 2
5. Dr. Yumkhaibam Sobita Devi, aged about 53 years,
D/o Y. Kamal Meitei, resident of Laipham Khunou
Makha Leikai near Hyundai showroom, Dingku
Road, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal East
District, Manipur - 795005.
6. Dr. Laitonjam Chinglensana, aged about 49 years,
S/o L. Rajendra Singh, resident of Singjamei
Thongam Leikai, Opposite SROY Club, P.O & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -
795003.
7. Dr. Loukrakpam Nataraj singh, aged about 43
years, S/o (L) Loukrakpam Ibomcha, resident of
Sagolband Tera Lukram Leirak, P.O & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
.... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, Government of India,
having its office at Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi -
110011.
2. Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal
through its Director, having its Office at RIMS
Campus at Lamphel, PO & PS Lamphel, Imphal
West District, Manipur - 795004.
3. The Joint Secretay (NE), Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, Government of India, having its Office at
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.
.... Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 3
1. Dr. Ksh. Raju Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o (L)
Ksh. Mangi Singh, resident of Nongmeibund Pung
Makhong, P.O & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur. PIN - 795005.
2. Dr. T, Jeetenkumar Singh, aged about 51 years,
S/o T. Biramani Singh, resident of Khurai
Shingabam Leikai, P.O & P.S. Porompat, Imphal
East District, Manipur - 795005.
3. Dr. Nicola Carissa Lyngdoh langrai, aged about 51
years, D/o Goldstar Nongrum, resident of Uripok
Tourangbam Leikai, P.O Lamphel, P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur. PIN: 795004.
4. Dr. Sorokhaibam Babina, aged about 52 years, D/o
(L) S. Chaoba singh, resident of Khurai
Chingangbam Leikai, P.O & P.S. Porompat, Imphal
East District, Manipur. PIN: 795005.
5. Dr. Paonam Shyamasakhi Devi, aged about 57
years, D/o Paonam Naran Singh, resident of
Wangkhei Yonglan Leirak, P.O & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur. PIN: 795005.
6. Dr. R.K. Praneshwari Devi, aged about 57 years,
D/o (L) R.K. Gopalsana Singh, resident of
Heirangoithong Aheibam Leirak, P.O. Imphal, &
P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur. PIN:
795001.
7. Dr. Ningthoujam Anita Devi, aged about 51 years,
D/o N. Khomdon Singh, resident of Thangmeiband
Hijam Leikai near Laijingthou Lampak, P.O.
Lamphel, P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur. PIN: 795004.
8. Dr. Memchoubi Phanjoubam, aged about 44 years,
D/o Ph. Tombi singh, resident of Yumnam Leikai
Lairembi Awang, Indo Burma Road, P.O. Imphal,
P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
PIN:795001.
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 4
9. Dr. Ksh. Mamta Devi, aged about 50 years, W/O L.
Manoranjan Singh, resident of Kwakeithel
Mayaikoibi. P.O & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West
District, Manipur. PIN: 795001.
10. Dr. Puyam Sobita Devi, aged about 55 years, W/o
Dr. Lukrakbam Saratchandra Singh, resident of
Tera Lukrakpam Leikai, P.O & P.s. Lamphel,
Imphal West District, Manipur. PIN: 795004.
.... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The Chairman, Executive Council, Society of the
Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS),
Imphal Manipur, Pin: 795004 represented by
Secretary (Ministry of Health & Family Welfare)
Government of India, having its office at Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.
2. The Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal
through its Director, having its Office at RIMS
Campus at Lamphel, PO & PS Lamphel, Imphal
West District, Manipur - 795004.
3. The Joint Secretary (NE), Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare, Government of India, having its
Office at Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.
4. The Deputy Secretary (NE) Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare, Government of India, having its
office at Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. PIN: 110011.
.... Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 5
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU KABUI
For the petitioners : Mr. L. Anand, Sr. Advocate
Mr. S. Biswajit, Sr. Advocate
Mr. K. Roshan, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. Kh. Samarjit, DSGI
Date of hearing : 21.02.2025
Date of order : 21.03.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. L. Anand, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the
petitioners in WP(C) No. 605 of 2022 & WP(C) No. 606 of 2022; Mr. S.
Biswajit, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.
707 of 2022; Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in WP(C) No. 621 of 2022 and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned DSGI
assisted by Mr. Nongdamba, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
[2] These writ petitions were filed by the petitioners under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying inter - alia for issuance
of a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate
order (s) -
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 6
In WP(C) No. 707 of 2022 the petitioner is praying:
(i) to admit the Writ Petition, call for the records of the
case and issue rule nisi calling upon the Respondents
to show cause as to why the prayers prayed for by
the Petitioner should not be granted. And, after
hearing them your Lordships may make the rule
absolute;
(ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari
or any other appropriate writ for quashing the portion
i.e. "as notional date of promotion without any
financial benefits. Financial benefits be given after
24th March, 2022 in all the promoted faculty
members" occurred in the promotion order No.
B/3343/2020-RIMS(TSP)/1020 dated 26.05.2022
issued by the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences
(RIMS for short) thereby directing the Respondents
for suitable modification/rectification in the said
promotion order for granting the entitled financial
benefits from the date of effective promotion i.e.
w.e.f 01.02.2019 in respect of the petitioner in the
fact and circumstances of the present case;
(iii) to direct the respondents for granting the entitled
arrear to the petitioner by virtue of the promotion
Order dated 26.05.2022 within a stipulated timeframe
preferable within 2(two) months;
(iv) to pass any other appropriate order(s) or direction(s)
that this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper; and
(v) to award cost of the Petition to the petitioner.
In WP(C) No. 605 of 2022, WP(C) No. 606 of 2022 the
petitioners are praying:
(i) to admit the present writ petition;
(ii) to issue rule nisi calling upon the respondents to
show cause as to why prayer sought for by the
petitioner shall not be granted in the facts and
circumstances of the present case;
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 7
(iii) to issue a writ in the nature of writ of Certiorari or
any other appropriate writ or order (s) for
quashing/setting aside the impugned portion of the
order bearing No. B/3343/2020-RIMS (TSP) dated the
26th May, 2022 (Annexure -A/1) issued by the
Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal
wherein financial benefits were given only after 24th
March, 2022 to the petitioners with a humble prayer
for giving a direction to the respondents to provide
financial benefits from the effective date of promotion
i.e. 1.1.2019 applicable to the petitioners.
(iv) to set aside the impugned portion of pay structure in
the order dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure A/1) and
correct the pay anomaly by directing the respondents
to give corresponding higher pay matrix under 7th
CPC from the date of its implementation in the facts
and circumstances of the present case;
(v) to direct the respondents to release the
aforementioned financial benefits including arrears in
favour of the petitioners within a period of 2 months.
(vi) To direct the respondents for giving financial benefits
by treating the petitioners equally with other similarly
situated faculty members (Doctors) who were
previously extended promotions under Time Scale
Promotion at Regional Institute of Medical Sciences,
Imphal;
(vii) Pass any order (s) which the Hon'ble Court may
deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of this case and in the interest of justice.
In WP(C) No. 621 of 2022 the petitioners are praying:
(i) to admit the present writ petition;
(ii) to issue rule nisi calling upon the respondents to
show cause as to why prayer sought for by the
petitioner shall not be granted in the facts and
circumstances of the present case;
(iii) to issue a writ in the nature of writ of Certiorari or
any other appropriate writ or order (s) for
quashing/setting aside the impugned portion of the
letter No. U.12025/16/2021 (NE) dated 23.05.2022
(Annexure A/1) of Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Government of India and a portion of the
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 8
order bearing No. B/3343/2020-RIMS (TSP) dated the
26th May, 2022 (Annexure -A/2) issued by the
Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal
wherein financial benefits were given only after 24th
March, 2022 in all the promoted faculty members in
terms of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (North
East Section) dated 2305.2022, including the
petitioners who were promoted to the post of
Professor w.e.f 1.2.2019.
(iv) To direct the respondents for giving financial benefits
w.e.f. 1.2.2019 by treating the petitioners equally
with other similarly situated faculty members
(Doctors) who were promoted to the post of
Professor as previously extended under Time Scale
Promotion at Regional Institute of Medical Sciences,
Imphal;
(v) To direct the respondents to release the entitled
financial benefits of the petitioners for the period
from 1.2.2019 to 24.3.2022.
(vi) Pass any order (s) which the Hon'ble Court may
deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of this case and in the interest of justice.
[3] Vide order dated 14.08.2023 of this Court, since the
issues involved in W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 are similar in
nature, the cases have been clubbed together and therefore, the said
cases are taken up together for disposal.
[4] Learned counsels for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 707 of
2022; WP(C) No. 605 of 2022; WP(C) No. 606 of 2022; and WP(C) No.
621 of 2022 submitted that the case of the petitioners are that they are
presently serving as Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor
by virtue of the promotion order dated 26.05.2022, of which a portion
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 9
thereof is being challenged herein. It is submitted that the petitioners
have rendered more than 5/6 to 8/9 years of service in the grade of
Associate Professor/ Assistant Professor/ Demonstrator/ Registrar and
have got all the essentials and requisites qualification for consideration
of promotion to the post of Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant
Professor under the Time Scale Promotion (TSP for short) Rules, 1991
introduced by the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS for
short) since the year 1993 and the TSP is being continued as such
when RIMS Administration was transferred to the Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare, Government of India w.e.f. 01.04.2007. It is also
submitted that the petitioners have been serving and rendering their
services to the best satisfaction of their superior officers and also
without any adverse remarks against them from any quarter till date.
Learned counsels for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 707 of
2022; WP(C) No. 605 of 2022; WP(C) No. 606 of 2022; and WP(C) No.
621 of 2022 have submitted that Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991 of
the RIMS is in the nature of a flexible complementing Scheme wherein
no additional posts are created, the existing persons on the basis of
critical assessment are promoted to the next higher level of scales are
upgraded without altering the combined authorized strength of posts.
This is mostly a scheme with an object to remove discontentment and
frustration due to lack of opportunity for promotion in normal courses.
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 10
It is further submitted that as per Rule 6A to TSP, the
promotion under the rules are made on the basis of a common
eligibility list as on 1st February of every year covering all officers and
Departments in the respective Sub-cadres concerning all specialties and
by taking into consideration the ACRs of last 5(five) years and the
petitioners have also fulfills all the requirements as contemplated under
rule 6(C) of TSP for promotion of Professor/ Associate Professor/
Assistant Professor from Associate Professor/ Assistant Professor/
Demonstrator/Registrar.
[5] Learned counsels for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 707 of
2022; WP(C) No. 605 of 2022; WP(C) No. 606 of 2022; and WP(C) No.
621 of 2022 submitted that vide memorandum dated 03.12.2020
circulated by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioners, it is
clearly notified that they were in the zone of consideration for
promotion to the post of Professor/Assistant Professor/Associate
Professor under Time Scale Promotion Rule, 1991 on 01.02.2019 calling
upon them to submit their bio-data and publications. Thereafter, a DPC
was held on 03.04.2021 by duly constituting a committee of RIMS and
the petitioners were recommended for promotion to the post of
Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor under TSP, 1991 for
the year 2019. The proceeding of the DPC meeting dated 03.04.2021
was submitted by the Respondent No. 2 to the appointing authority i.e.
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 11
the Secretary (H & FW), Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Government of India vide letter dated 04.04.2021 for according
approval. However, the declaration of the DPC result and approval of
appointment thereof was stalled for a long time and the representation
of the petitioners dated 29.11.2021 regarding declaration of the DPC
result were also not considered by the respondent No. 1.
[6] Learned counsels for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 707 of
2022; WP(C) No. 605 of 2022; WP(C) No. 606 of 2022; and WP(C) No.
621 of 2022 submitted that they were promoted to post of Professor/
Associate Professor/ Assistant Professor vide order dated 26.05.2022
under Time Scale Promotion Rules for the year 2019 w.e.f. 1st February,
2019 as notional date of promotion without any financial benefits.
However, the petitioners were given financial benefits only after 24th
March, 2022 by depriving all their entitled rights to enjoy their
respective pay scale and other admissible allowances for the post of
Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor w.e.f. from the date
of promotion i.e. 1.2.2019. It is further submitted that the respondents
had arbitrarily, illegally and unreasonably deprived the financial benefits
for the period from 1.2.2019 till 24.3.2022 (for more than three years)
which shall commensurate with their promotion to the post of
Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor under Time Scale
Promotion Rules, 1991 for the year 2019 w.e.f. 1.2.2019. It is further
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 12
submitted that the act of the respondents amount to discriminatory,
bias, malafide and victimization of the petitioners.
[7] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.
707 of 2022 submits that vide representation No. 6/CC/TSP/TAMOA/
2022 dated 08.06.2022, the Teachers' and Medical Officers' Association
(TAMOA 2021-2023), a registered body under Manipur Societies
Registration Act, 1989 under Registration No. 462/M/SR2010 requested
the Hon'ble Union Minister of Health & Family Welfare, Government of
India to reconsider the decision of notional promotion and to kindly
accord full financial benefits w.e.f. 01.02.2019 for Time Scale
Promotees for the year 2019 for Doctors in Regional Institute of Medical
Sciences, Imphal, but till date no response is received from the
concerned authority.
[8] Learned counsels for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 707 of
2022; WP(C) No. 605 of 2022; WP(C) No. 606 of 2022; and WP(C) No.
621 of 2022 submitted that at the time of issuance of the above
mentioned promotion order dated 26.05.2022, a set of writ petitions
being WP(C) No. 944 of 2021; WP(C) No. 942 of 2021, WP(C) No. 943
of 2021 were pending for adjudication. In the said writ petitions, the
petitioners have prayed for directing the respondents to declare the
DPC held on 03.04.2021 for promotion to the post of Professor/
Associate Professor/ Assistant Professor under the Time Scale
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 13
Promotion Rules, 1991 for the year 2019 in the Regional Institute of
Medical Sciences within a stipulated period of time. The writ petitions
were taken up and heard together on 13.06.2022 and the same were
disposed of accordingly thereby granting liberty to challenge the
promotion order dated 26.05.2022 as per Rules. It is further submitted
that subsequently after the Hon'ble Court's Order dated 13.06.2022, the
petitioners have submitted their joining report as Professor/Associate
Professor/Assistant Professor w.e.f. 01.02.2019 to the concerned
authority through the Prof. & Head, Department of Medicine on
22.06.2022. The said joining reports were made under protest for not
being granted the due financial benefits w.e.f. the date of effecting his
promotion i.e. 01.02.2019.
[9] Learned counsels for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 707 of
2022; WP(C) No. 605 of 2022; WP(C) No. 606 of 2022; and WP(C) No.
621 of 2022 further submitted that there is no case of giving notional
date of promotion without any financial benefits in the history of giving
promotion to the faculty members of the Regional Institute of Medical
Sciences. In support of their submission the learned counsels for the
petitioners submits order dated 13.07.2015, 06.01.2017, 25.04.2019,
19.09.2020 etc., issued by RIMS which strengthen their submission. It
is further submitted that in the earlier cases of promotions in RIMS
under TSP, DPC were also not held in time and promotions were
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 14
deferred, however, promotions were granted w.e.f. 1st February of
every year as per rule 6(A)(i) of TSP along with the financial benefits
from their respective date of promotion. But, in the case of the
petitioners, the respondent No. 2 have issued the order dated
26.05.2022 in an arbitrary manner and the petitioners were subjected
to discrimination by illegally depriving of their entitled rights to enjoy
the pay scale and other admissible allowances commensurate to the
post of Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor w.e.f. the date
of promotion i.e. 01.02.2019 this act of the authority is bias and
without any uniformity in the administration procedure.
[10] Learned counsels for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 707 of
2022; WP(C) No. 605 of 2022; WP(C) No. 606 of 2022; and WP(C) No.
621 of 2022 further submitted that the grade pay mentioned in the
promotion order dated 26.05.2022 is Rs. 7000/- and Rs. 10000/-
although as per the 7th CPC pay structure, there is no
matching/correspondent pay level for Pay Band 4 + grade pay Rs.
10000 (Professor), Pay Band 4 + grade pay Rs. 7000 (Associate
Professor) and Pay band 3 + grade pay Rs. 7000 (Assistant Professor).
In this regard, the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS)
communicated the Under Secretary (NE), Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi in respect of
Revision of Pay of Professors/Associate Professors/Assistant Professors
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 15
consequent upon implementation of 7th Pay Commission in its letter
dated 18.09.2020. In this regard, the RIMS authority has already issued
an order by fixing the pay of the Assistant Professor of RIMS, Imphal at
the lowest level of PB4 in the Pay Matrix of 7th CPC i.e. level 13 pending
with grade pay of Rs. 8700/-. Thereafter, on 05.08.2022, the RIMS
authority has answered a query of the Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, Government of India in respect of the grade pay of the
Associate Professor by confirming that the same is of Rs. 8700/- not Rs.
7000/-.
It is further submitted that the order dated 26.05.2022
suffers from unfair, arbitrary, bias, mala fide as the same issued
without application of mind and against the very essence, spirit and
object of Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991 which is a scheme to
remove discontentment and frustration due to lack of opportunities for
promotion in normal course. The promotion to the post of
Professor/Associate Professor/ Assistant Professor was long overdue to
the petitioners as they are the eligible candidates for consideration of
promotion for year the year 2019 under Time Scale Promotion Rules,
1991.
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 16
[11] Being aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present
writ petitions on the following grounds:-
a) The petitioners have a good prima facie case and
the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner
to quash the portion i.e. "as notional date of promotion
without any financial benefits. Financial benefits be given
after 24th March, 2022 in all the promoted faculty
members" occurred in the promotion Order No.
B/3343/2020-RIMS (TSP)/1020 dated 26.5.2022 issued
by the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS for
short) thereby directing the Respondents for suitable
modification/ rectification in the said promotion order for
granting the entitled financial benefits from the date of
effective promotion i.e. w.e.f. 1.2.2019 in respect of the
petitioner OR any other direction(s) which the Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and just in the fact and
circumstances of the present case;
b) The petitioners submitted that the promotion order
dated 26.5.2022 issued by the authority is in complete
violation of principles of natural justice and has been
issued arbitrarily, mala fide without any rhyme or reason
and without following the due procedure of law;
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 17
c) The petitioners submitted that they are once
appreciated by the Prime Minister Officer (PMO) and
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW) as
Frontline Warriors of COVID 19 are being deprived of
their entitled financial and other benefits;
d) The petitioners submitted that denying the entitled
financial benefits from the date of retrospective
promotion by considering all financial benefits from the
date of the approval/ date of amendment of Time Scale
Promotion (24th March, 2022) of the Time Scale
Promotion (time lapse for financial benefits is 3 years) by
the authority, amounts to punishing the doctors for their
dedicated health care services;
e) The petitioners submitted that authority is bound to
answer as to
(i) why should the date of effectiveness of the
ongoing Time Scale Promotion for the year 2019
be the 24th March 2022, i.e. the date of the
approval by the Ministry?
(ii) Is it uniformly applied in all time scale/ time
bound promotional schemes of the medical
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 18
institutes under the Ministry? The petitioners
further submitted that the effective date for Time
Scale Promotion approval given by the Ministry for
the year 2018 (vide File No. U/12025/22/2016-NE
dated 16.9.2020) is from 1.2.2018 and not
16.9.2020 i.e. date of issuance of Order.
f) The petitioners submitted that seniority list of the
faculty members in RIMS have 1st February as the date
of their appointment/ joining unless they are recruited by
an open advertisement till date as Time Scale Promotion
have been effective from the 1st February of the
promotion year and every year. No such precedence of
Time Scale Promotion 2019 has been encountered so far
wherein Time Scale Promotion has been made effective
from the date of approval by the Ministry.
g) The petitioners submitted that despite frantic
attempts made by the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare (MOHFW) during the year 2008 to 2012 to bring
a uniform promotional scheme in RIMS, Imphal, it could
not come to a conclusion due to logistics. Since, then,
Time Scale Promotion (TSP for short) has been enforced
with a directive from the MOHFW that "the existing TSP
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 19
will be continued till adoption of DACP is finalised/
approved vide No. U.12025/13/2012-NE dated 6.6.2012.
h) The petitioners submitted that the word 'notional'
relates to a phenomenon which does not exists/ evident
in reality i.e. hypothetical or imaginary or existing based
on theory and the application of the same upon the
petitioner and other faculty member for the first time
without any rhyme and reason amounts to bias and
victimization of the petitioner and other concerned
faculty members. The petitioner further submits that the
petitioner and other faculty members were given notional
date of promotion without any financial benefits w.e.f.
1.2.2019 without giving any reason whatsoever amounts
whimsical and bias act of the authority,
i) The petitioners submitted that giving financial
benefit after 24.3.2022 to the promoted faculty members
including the petitioner is not feasible in the eye of law
as the said dateline as decided by the RIMS Authority is
without any legal provisions. It is further submitted that
such financial benefits which had been provided to other
faculty members from the effective date of their
promotions cannot be denied to the petitioner without
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 20
any valid reason and he further submits that the proper
authority to take such decision by amending the earlier
decision is the Executive Council of the RIMS Society and
it was not done in the present case,
j) The petitioners submitted that the RIMS Authority
in earlier occasions had given the financial benefits to all
the promoted faculty members w.e.f. the effective date
of promotion as done earlier and as such the RIMS
Authority has to act in parity in respect of all the faculty
member especially with the petitioner's case. It is further
submitted that the act of the RIMS Authority amounts to
wilful discrimination, bias amongst its faculty members
and the same amounts to violation of equality enshrined
in the Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
[11] Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents
submitted that as on the date of DPC held on 03.04.2021 and as on
01.02.2019 i.e. the effective date of promotion sought by the petitioner,
the promoted faculty members were not eligible but were made eligible
after the approval of competent authority for amendment of the Time
Scale Promotion Rules, 1991 on 24.03.2022 on the basis of
recommendation of review DPC.
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 21
It has also been submitted that before the amendment of
the TSP rules, 1991 for promotion of teaching faculty, the Rule 6 (C)
(V) of the Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991 read as:
"Provided that the total number of Associate Professors
shall not exceed the total number of Assistant Professors
in the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal as a
whole".
Further, the Rule 6 (B) (i) of the Time Scale Promotion
Rules, 1991 read as:
"The appointing Authority shall upgrade 22% of total
regular posts of Associate Professor to the grade of
Professor in the scale of pay Rs. 14,300-400-18300/-".
Further, it has been submitted that while examining the
DPC proceedings held on 03.04.2021 for promotion of teaching faculties
under Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991 for the year 2019 in the
Ministry, it was observed that the strength of Assistant Professors have
been shown as 54 and after promotion of 10 Assistant Professors to the
grade of Associate Professors, the strength of Assistant professors
remain at 44 (54-10); whereas, the strength of Associate Professor
became 45 (35+10), after time scale promotion. The strength of
Associate Professors thus exceeded the strength of Assistant Professor.
Thus, only nine Assistant Professors ought to be promoted to the post
of Associate Professors under the provision of the Time Scale Promotion
Rules, 1991 which is contrary to the above mentioned provision of the
TSP Rules, 1991.
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 22
It has been submitted that the provisions of Rule 6(B) (i)
of the Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991 imposed a ceiling of 22% of
total regular post of Associate Professor. The number of such regular
post was 46 and therefore, 22% of the ceiling came out to be 10.12
rounded to 10. However, as per the RIMS letter dated 22.09.2021, the
sanctioned post of Professor is 29 and therefore, additionally only 10
persons could be promoted under the Time Scale Promotion Rules,
1991.
Later on, in pursuance of the Ministry's Letter No.
U.12025/16/2021-NE dated 24.03.2022, Rule 6 (B) (i) & 6 (C) (v) in the
scheme of Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991 was amended by RIMS
vide order No. B/3343/2020-RIMS(TSP) dated 26.03.2022 as under:
Rule 6 (B) (i): The Appointing Authority shall upgrade
22% of total regular posts of Associate Professor to the
grade of Professor in the scale of pay Ra. 14300-400-
18300/-on yearly basis.
Rule 6 (C) (v) provided that the total number of Associate
Professors shall not exceed the total number of Assistant
Professors in the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences,
Imphal as a whole on yearly basis.
Thereafter, in pursuance of the Ministry's letter dated
01.04.2022 conveyed approval of competent authority for promotion of
teaching faculty of RIMS for the year 2019 with immediate effect.
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 23
Considering the grievances of faculty, Secretary, MoHFW in his capacity
as Chairman, Executive Council took a view on the matter and the
Ministry's letter dated 23.05.2022 conveyed the decision that
01.02.2019 shall be treated as notional date of promotion without any
financial benefits. Financial benefits were to be given after 24.03.2022
i.e. the date of the amendment of the TSP Rules, 1991.
[12] Learned senior counsel for the respondents further
submitted that the recommendation of DPC proceedings held on
03.04.2021 for promotion of teaching faculties under TSP Rules, 1991
for the year 2019 were received on 05.05.2021 & 15.05.2021
respectively by the Ministry after which certain clarifications were
sought from RIMS and the clarifications were received by the Ministry
on 23.09.2021. Further, the recommendations of the DPC dated
03.04.2021 was considered and examined by the Ministry and
thereafter, the competent authority of the Ministry vide letter No.
12025/16/2021-NE dated 03.02.2022 referred the matter back to RIMS
with the following comments:
"DPC Proceedings needs to be further examined in light of
provision laid in existing rules without creating any
imbalance in hierarchy in the institute and if desired, RIMS
may propose suitable amendments in the scheme by
following due procedure".
After the approval of competent authority for amendment
of the TSP Rules, 1991 on 24.03.2022 on the basis of recommendation
of review DPC in pursuance of Ministry's letter No. U.12025/16/2021-NE
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 24
dated 24.03.2022, the result of the DPC for promotion of teaching
faculty under Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991 for the year 2019 was
declared on 01.04.2022 in pursuance of the Ministry's letter dated
01.04.2022. It is further submitted that after giving promotion to the
petitioners to the post of Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant
Professor under Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991 for the year 2019,
the petitioner's pay was fixed notionally at the higher pay level under
7th CPC at Pay Level-14, Pay Level-13 and Pay Level - 11 w.e.f.
01.02.2019 as there is no corresponding pay of PB4 + GP Rs. 10000
(Pre-revised), PB4 + GP Rs. 7000 (Pre-revised) and PB3 + GP Rs. 7000
(Pre-revised) in the 7th CPC Pay Matrix. However, financial benefit
arising from the above notional pay fixation was given after 24.03.2022.
[13] Learned senior counsel for the respondents further
submitted that the petitioners were promoted to the post of Professor/
Associate Professor/Assistant Professor in the Scale of Pay of Rs. PB4+
GP Rs. 10000/- (Pre-revised), Rs. PB4+ GP Rs. 7000/- (Pre-revised) and
PB3 + GP Rs. 7000 (Pre-revised) in the 7th CPC Pay Matrix in pursuance
of the Ministry letter No. U.12025/16/2021-NE dated 23.05.2022 under
Time Scale Promotion Rules for the year 2019 w.e.f. 01.02.2019 as
notional date of promotion. The Financial benefit was given after
24.03.2022 i.e. the date of amendment of TSP Rules, 1991 to all
promoted faculty members for the year 2019. After promoting the
petitioners to the post of Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 25
Professor under TSP Rules, 1991 for the year 2019, the petitioners
were granted the higher pay level under 7th CPC as the pay scale of the
promoted Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor was fixed
provisionally at Level-14, Level-13 and Level-11 of the 7th CPC w.e.f.
01.02.2019. However, financial benefit arising from the above notional
pay fixation was given after 24.03.2022.
[14] Learned senior counsel for the respondents further
submitted that as on the date of DPC held on 03.04.2021 and as on
01.02.2019 i.e. the effective date of promotion sought by the
petitioners, the promoted faculty members were not eligible but were
made eligible after the approval of competent authority for amendment
of the Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991 on 24.03.2022 on the basis of
recommendation of review DPC. The Secretary, MoHFW in his capacity
as Chairman, Executive Council had taken a view on the matter and
decided that 01.02.2019 be treated as the notional date of promotion
without any financial benefits for the promoted faculty members under
the Time Scale Promotion for the year 2019. The Financial benefit was
given after 24.03.2022 i.e. the date of amendment of Time Scale
Promotion Rules, 1991 to all promoted faculty members of the year
2019. After promoting the petitioners to the post of Professor/Associate
Professor/Assistant Professor under TSP Rules, 1991 for the year 2019,
the pay scale of the promoted Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant
Professor was fixed at Level-14, Level-13 And Level-11 of the 7th CPC
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 26
as there is no corresponding pay of PB4 + GP Rs. 10000/- (Pre-
revised), PB4 + GP Rs. 7000/- (Pre-revised) and PB3 + GP Rs. 7000/-
(Pre-revised) in the 7th CPC Pay Matrix.
[15] Learned senior counsel for the respondents
submitted that Rules 6 (A) (i) of the Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991
read as:
"The promotion under these rules shall be made on the
basis of a common eligibility list as on 1st February of
every year covering all officers and Departments in the
respective sub-cadres covering all specialists."
It is apparently a procedure and doesn't say anything
about effective date of promotion and financial benefits from their
respective date of promotion. It may be interpreted from this statement
that eligibility criteria is to be checked and the list is to be prepared as
on 1st February of every year. It is further submitted that as on
01.02.2019 recommended faculties for the year 2019 were not even
eligible due to restriction in the scheme which was amended later on
and also, nothing has been mentioned in the time scale promotion
scheme about the effective date of promotion and financial benefits
from their respective date of promotion.
Later on, the Secretary, MoHFW in his capacity as
Chairman, Executive Council had taken a view on the matter and
decided that 01.02.2019 be treated as the notional date of promotion
without any financial benefits for the promoted faculty members under
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 27
the Time Scale Promotion for the year 2019. The Financial benefit was
given after 24.03.2022 i.e. the date of amendment of TSP, Rules 1991
to all promoted faculty members of the year 2019. Further, it is
submitted that even in case, if financial benefits with retrospective
effect was granted by mistake to other faculty or otherwise, the said
mistake or error cannot be cited as a precedent for the purpose of
extending the financial benefits in violation of the provision of the Time
Scale Promotion Scheme/Rules. Right to equality is a positive concept
and cannot be enforced in a negative manner. If an illegality or an
irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or group of
individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Courts and
Tribunals to require the state or its Instrumentalities to commit the
same irregularity or illegality in their favour on the reasoning that they
have been denied the benefits which have been illegally or arbitrarily or
irregularly extended to others.
[16] Learned senior counsel for the respondent also submitted
that the competent authority had already taken a view on the matter
and decided that 01.02.2019 be treated as the notional date of
promotion without any financial benefits for the promoted faculty
members under the Time Scale Promotion for the year 2019. The
Financial benefit was given after 24.03.2022 i.e. the date of
amendment of Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991 to all promoted
faculty members relating to the year 2019.
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 28
[17] On the contrary learned counsels for the petitioners in
their reply affidavit further submitted that the allegation of the
respondents that "the promoted faculty members were not eligible but
were made eligible after the approval of competent authority for
amendment of the TSP Rules, 1991 on 24.03.2022 on the basis of
recommendation of review DPC" is a false and misleading statement. It
is submitted that the petitioners were allowed to participate in the
D.P.C held on 03.04.2021 on being found eligible for promotion to the
post of Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor under TSP
Rules, 1991 for the year 2019 and in pursuance of the memorandum
dated 3.12.2020 circulated by the RIMS calling upon the petitioners to
submit their bio-data.
It is further submitted that as per the aforesaid
memorandum dated 3.12.2020, it clearly stated that the petitioners
were in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of
Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor under the Time Scale
Promotion Rule 1991 on 1.2.2019. The petitioners were very much
eligible as on 01.02.2019 for consideration of promotion to the post of
Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor under TSP Rules 1991
and it is not sustainable to assert that the petitioners were made
eligible after approval from the competent authority. The competent
authority cannot apply its arbitrary law on its own against the TSP Rules
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 29
1991 as against the petitioners and hence, the petitioners are bound by
the same TSP Rules since, its inception in the year 1991 till today.
It has been submitted that the respondents statement
that "...in pursuance of the Ministry's Letter No.U.12025/16/2021-NE
dated 24.03.2022, Rule 6(B) (i) & 6(C) (v) in the scheme of Time Scale
Promotion Rules, 1991 was amended by RIMS vide order No.
B/3343/2020-RIMS(TSP) dated 26.03.2022 as under" creates a doubt
as to how the amendment of the said Rules was done without inviting
any clarifications/objections from the petitioners. The Ministry's letter
dated 24.03.2022, order of the RIMS dated 26.03.2022 and 23.05.2022
are highly required and the respondents may be directed to produce
the same before this Hon'ble Court for proper adjudication of the
present case.
Further, the learned senior counsels for the petitioners
denied the statement made by the respondents in his affidavit -in-
oppositions where it is specifically stated that 01.02.2019 shall be
treated as notional date of promotion without financial benefits and
financial benefits were to be given after 24.03.2022 i.e. the date of the
amendment of the TSP Rules, 1991. Mentioned is also made that at the
time of giving Time Scale Promotion in the year 2018 (vide File No.
U/12025/22/2016-NE dated 16.9.2020) by the Ministry it was counted
from 1.2.2018 (effective date of promotion) and not from 16.9.2020 i.e.
date of issuance of order (approval by the ministry). Hence, the
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 30
competent authority should consider the Time Scale Promotion Rules,
1991 of the petitioners in parity with those of the earlier Time Scale
Promotees. The petitioners should be treated equally as done in the
case of their predecessors since they have also been rendering their
continued regular services for the last many years without any break.
The action of the respondents authorities giving promotion under Time
Scale Promotion Rules with effect from 01.02.2019 as notional date of
promotion and Financial benefits given after 24.3.2022 without any
rhymes and reasons amounts to bias and victimisation of the
petitioners.
[18] Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that the effective date of promotion of the petitioners is from
01.02.2019 for the post of Demonstrator/Registrar/Assistant
Professor/Associate Professor to Assistant Professor/Associate
Professor/Professor under Time Scale Promotion Rules 1991. However,
it is submitted that due to delay by the Respondent authorities, the DPC
was finally held in the year 2021 and the result of the DPC was kept
silent for long and ultimately, vide order dated 26.05.2022, the
promotion of the petitioner was approved w.e.f. 01.02.2019 as notional
date of promotion without any Financial benefits. However, it is
reflected in the said order that the financial benefits will be given after
24th March, 2022 in all the promoted faculty members which is
arbitrary, illegal and not tenable in the eye of law. Further the illegal act
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 31
of the respondents is discriminatory as financial benefits was given in
the earlier similar matters of the same institute.
[19] Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the impugned order dated 26.05.2022 specifically stated that "........the
following doctors are promoted to the post and pay scale under Time
Scale Promotion Rules for the year 2019 w.e.f. 1st February, 2019 as
notional date of promotion without any financial benefits. Financial
Benefits be given after 24th March, 2022 to all the promoted faculty
members: .........."
However, in earlier occasions the RIMS authority had
given financial benefits to all the faculty members who were given
retrospective promotion w.e.f. the effective date of promotion as done
earlier. Further, it is submitted that the object of Time Scale Promotion
Scheme is to remove discontentment and frustration amongst the
faculty members due to lack of opportunity for promotion in normal
courses. However, the action of the RIMS authority thereby giving
Financial benefit arising from the above notional pay fixation after
24.3.2022 violates the TSP Rules, 1991, which is discriminative in
nature and bias amongst the faculty members and the same amounts
to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
[20] Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that while giving notional promotions to an eligible candidate
as per the said time bound promotion with delay on the part of the
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 32
administration, it should be kept in mind that time scale promotion in
respect of specialist is purely time bound, listing of eligible candidate on
1st February every year is based on the durations of the completed
service, research paper publication and acceptable ACRs- meaning
thereby, these candidates are eligible for promotion in all respect on 1st
February, of the particular year. While giving notional promotions, all
these facts should not be undermined by the authority concerned.
Moreover, the authority failed to give any explanation as to why Time
Scale Promotion for the specialist should not be given to the eligible
candidate including the petitioners on the cut-off date i.e. 1st February
of the year and in the present case 1.2.2019. It is further submitted
that the said Rule explicitly pointed out that if the candidate is eligible
on the cut-off date of 1st February every year, they have to be
promoted. Further, Time Scale promotion being a time bound regular
phenomenon, notional promotion has no relevance to an already
eligible person as eligibility is defined every year as on the cut-off date
i.e. 1st February of every year.
It is further submitted that TSP Rules, 1991 amended on
24.3.2022 after the date of eligibility of the petitioners on 01.2.2019 or
the date of DPC 3.4.2021 cannot be applicable retrospectively. Further,
Time Scale Promotion is a continuous process in RIMS Imphal since, the
introduction of said Rule on 1991 and no new Rules for promotion was
introduced before the promotion of the petitioners and hence, notional
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 33
promotion in case of the petitioners is not applicable and the petitioners
should be promoted retrospectively w.e.f. their date of eligible for
promotion i.e. 01.2.2019 with all the financial benefits. Further, the
petitioners cannot be denied to their entitlement because of the delay
on the part of the respondent authorities.
[21] Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
following judgments in support of their cases;
1. WP(C) No. 1104/2013, 2874/2013 and
2884/2013 [Umesh Kumar Moza vs. Govt. of J &
K & Anr.] para no. 28, 29 & 30.
"28. As for the merits of the case, a perusal of the
order dated 9.7.2010 passed in favour of Dr. Vinod
Kumar Bhat granting him the Second and the Third Time
Bound Promotions w.e.f. 1.4.1994 and 1.4.1999
respectively, reveals that without any justification, a
different yardstick has been applied by the respondent
to the petitioner for the very same relief while issuing
the impugned order dated 18.7.2011, whereunder he
was granted the notional pay-scale of 4100-5300/- (pre-
revised) w.e.f. 1.4.2003, but was not given the
monetary benefits thereunder and w.e.f. 1.4.2011, when
the said pay-scale was granted to him "monetarily". In
other words, only the amount payable w.e.f. 1.4.2011
was ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner
while depriving him of the monetary benefit of the
upgraded pay scale for a period of eight years reckoned
from 01.04.2003. No rationale has been offered for
dividing the Third Time Bound Promotion granted to the
petitioner in two parts at the time of issuing the
impugned order; nor is there any justification for doing
so when a similarly placed Assistant Surgeon employed
with the respondent, namely, Dr. Vinod Kumar Bhat was
granted real time benefits of the Time Bound
Promotions.
29. The plea of the learned counsel for the
respondents that Rule 2.43 of the J&K Financial Code
Volume-1 prohibits re-opening of old cases and the
present case ought to be treated as an old case is taken
note of only to be rejected. The present matter cannot
be treated as a "re-opening of an old case for the simple
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 34
reason that the respondents did not issue the impugned
order by re-opening the petitioner's case. In fact, the
impugned order came to be passed for the first time and
it was not on the basis of any representations made by
the petitioner for enhancement of his pay scale by grant
of any upgradation. Having unilaterally taken a decision
to pass an order dated 18.7.2011, the respondents
cannot be permitted to discriminate against the
petitioner by declining to grant him the monetary
benefits payable w.e.f. 1.4.2003, the date from which
he was granted the Third Time Bound Promotion. The
petitioner, who is an Assistant Surgeon (Migrant), is
similarly placed as Dr. Vinod Kumar Bhat, Assistant
Surgeon (Migrant) and he ought to have been treated
on the same footing for grant of similar relief as was
granted to his colleague.
30. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of
the opinion that the impugned order dated 18.7.2011
granting the Third Time Bound Promotion to the
petitioner ought to be modified by deleting the words,
"notionally" and "monetarily" therefrom. Accordingly,
the present petition is allowed and the respondents are
directed to amend the order dated 18.7.2011, by
granting the Third Time Bound Promotion in the pay-
scale of 4100-5300/-(pre-revised) in favour of the
petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.2003. It is further directed that the
entire monetary benefits payable to the petitioner under
the Third Time Bound Promotion shall be payable from
the date of his entitlement and the arrears shall be
released in favour of the petitioner within three months
from today, failing which the said amount shall carry
simple interest payable by the respondents @9% per
annum, till realization. The petitioners in the two
connected petitions shall also be entitled to similar relief
as granted to the petitioner in W.P.(C) 1104/2013."
2. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 891 [Union of India & Ors. Vs.
Munshi Ram] para No. 7 & 8.
'7. It cannot be disputed that employees working in
different divisions/zones in the Railways are under the
very same employer - Railway Board which is under the
Ministry of Railways. There are 16 Zones and 68
Divisions in the Railways. Therefore, the employees
working under the same employer Railway Board
working in different Zones/Divisions are required to be
treated similarly and equally and are entitled to similar
benefits and are entitled to the same treatment. As
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 35
rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents, there
cannot be any discrimination inter se. Under the
circumstances, on the ground of parity, the Commission
Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway are
entitled to the same benefits which are held to be
entitled to all the similarly situated Commission
Vendors/Bearers working under different
Zones/Divisions. There cannot be different
criteria/parameters with respect to similarly situated
employees - Commission Vendors/bearers working in
different Zones/Divisions, but working under the same
employer
8. The Railways/UOI/Railway Board cannot be
permitted to repeat the same arguments which were
raised before different Tribunals, High Courts and also
before this Court. Under the circumstances, the
respondents-Commission Vendors/bearers working in
the Northern Railway shall also be entitled to the same
benefits which the other Commission Vendors/bearers
working in different Zones/Divisions are held to be
entitled to. There cannot be discrimination among the
similarly situated Commission Vendors/bearers. To deny
similar benefits would tantamount to discrimination and
in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India.'
3. (1983) 3 SCC 284 [S.V. Rangaiah & Ors vs.
'9. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we find
no force in either of the two contentions under the old
rules a panel had to be prepared every year in
September. Accordingly, a panel should have been
prepared in the year 1976 and transfer or promotion to
the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II should have been
made out of that panel. In that event the petitioners in
the two representation petitions who ranked higher
than respondents 3 to 15 would not have been
deprived of their right of being considered for
promotion. The vacancies which occurred prior to the
amended rules would be governed by the old rules and
not by the amended rules. It is admitted by counsel for
both the parties that henceforth promotion to the post
of Sub-Registrar Grade -II will be according to the new
rules on the zonal basis and not on the State-wide
basis and, therefore, there was no question of
challenging the new rules. But the question of filling
the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended
rules. We have not the slightest doubt that the posts
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 36
which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be
governed by the old rules and not be the now rules.'
[22] Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the
following judgment in support of his cases;
1. (2015) 14 SCC 335 [Ramesh Kumar vs. Union of
India & Ors] para No. 14 & 15.
2. (2013) 2 Gau LT 814 [Oinam Brajachand Singh
(Dr) Vs. Union of India & Ors.]
[23] Heard the learned counsels at length and also perused the
pleadings made in their respective petitions and the counter affidavit
with the citations made by each counsel in support of their cases.
This Court while deciding these writ petitions relied upon
the facts and circumstances along with the submissions made by each
learned counsel as narrated above, in doing so, it is evident that the
respondents do not deny the fact that the petitioners were given
promotion by the respondents vide order dated 26.05.2022 issued by
Deputy Director (Admn.) Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS)
in pursuance of Ministry's letter No. U.12025/16/2021-NE dated
24.03.2022 for the year 2019 and petitioners' pay was fixed notionally
at the higher pay level 7th CPC at Pay Level - 13 and Pay Level - 11
with effect from 01.02.2019 as notional date of promotion without any
financial benefits. However, the financial benefits arising from the
above notional pay fixation was given after 24.03.2022. There is no
denial on the part of the respondents that in earlier occasions they had
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 37
given the financial benefits to all the promoted faculty members w.e.f.
the effective date of promotion as done earlier to that the only negative
response on the part of the respondents is that if financial benefit with
retrospective effect was granted by mistake to faculty or otherwise the
said mistake or error cannot be cited for the purpose of extending
financial benefits in violation of the provision of the time scale
promotion scheme/rules, further right to equality is the positive concept
and cannot be enforced in negative manner, if an illegally or an
irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or group of
individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of courts and tribunal
to require the state or its instrumentality to commit the same
irregularity/illegality in their favour on the reasoning that they have
been denied the benefits which have been illegally or arbitrarily or
irregularly extended to others. This stand made by the respondents
cannot see in the eyes of law as nowhere in the pleadings of the
respondents could find that the earlier orders which are given financial
benefit to all the promoted faculty members with effect from the
effective date of promotion were granted by mistake and the said
orders were illegally/irregularly passed by the authority as such, the
stand made above by the respondents is not acceptable in the eyes of
law.
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 38
[24] The question before this Court right now is whether the
RIMS authority commits willful discrimination, bias amongst each
faculty members if so, the same amounts to violation of equality
enshrined in the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For deciding this
question, this Court is relying upon the following Hon'ble Apex Court's
judgments ;
1. WP(C) No. 1104/2013, 2874/2013 and 2884/2013
[Umesh Kumar Moza vs. Govt. of J & K & Anr.] para
"28. As for the merits of the case, a perusal of the
order dated 9.7.2010 passed in favour of Dr. Vinod Kumar
Bhat granting him the Second and the Third Time Bound
Promotions w.e.f. 1.4.1994 and 1.4.1999 respectively,
reveals that without any justification, a different yardstick
has been applied by the respondent to the petitioner for
the very same relief while issuing the impugned order
dated 18.7.2011, whereunder he was granted the notional
pay-scale of 4100-5300/- (pre-revised) w.e.f. 1.4.2003, but
was not given the monetary benefits thereunder and w.e.f.
1.4.2011, when the said pay-scale was granted to him
"monetarily". In other words, only the amount payable
w.e.f. 1.4.2011 was ordered to be released in favour of the
petitioner while depriving him of the monetary benefit of
the upgraded pay scale for a period of eight years
reckoned from 01.04.2003. No rationale has been offered
for dividing the Third Time Bound Promotion granted to the
petitioner in two parts at the time of issuing the impugned
order; nor is there any justification for doing so when a
similarly placed Assistant Surgeon employed with the
respondent, namely, Dr. Vinod Kumar Bhat was granted
real time benefits of the Time Bound Promotions.
29. The plea of the learned counsel for the respondents
that Rule 2.43 of the J&K Financial Code Volume-1
prohibits re-opening of old cases and the present case
ought to be treated as an old case is taken note of only to
be rejected. The present matter cannot be treated as a "re-
opening of an old case for the simple reason that the
respondents did not issue the impugned order by re-
opening the petitioner's case. In fact, the impugned order
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 39
came to be passed for the first time and it was not on the
basis of any representations made by the petitioner for
enhancement of his pay scale by grant of any upgradation.
Having unilaterally taken a decision to pass an order dated
18.7.2011, the respondents cannot be permitted to
discriminate against the petitioner by declining to grant him
the monetary benefits payable w.e.f. 1.4.2003, the date
from which he was granted the Third Time Bound
Promotion. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Surgeon
(Migrant), is similarly placed as Dr. Vinod Kumar Bhat,
Assistant Surgeon (Migrant) and he ought to have been
treated on the same footing for grant of similar relief as
was granted to his colleague.
30. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the
opinion that the impugned order dated 18.7.2011 granting
the Third Time Bound Promotion to the petitioner ought to
be modified by deleting the words, "notionally" and
"monetarily" therefrom. Accordingly, the present petition is
allowed and the respondents are directed to amend the
order dated 18.7.2011, by granting the Third Time Bound
Promotion in the pay-scale of 4100-5300/-(pre-revised) in
favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.2003. It is further
directed that the entire monetary benefits payable to the
petitioner under the Third Time Bound Promotion shall be
payable from the date of his entitlement and the arrears
shall be released in favour of the petitioner within three
months from today, failing which the said amount shall
carry simple interest payable by the respondents @9% per
annum, till realization. The petitioners in the two connected
petitions shall also be entitled to similar relief as granted to
the petitioner in W.P.(C) 1104/2013.'
2. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 891 [Union of India & Ors. Vs.
Munshi Ram] para No. 7 & 8.
'7. It cannot be disputed that employees working in
different divisions/zones in the Railways are under the very
same employer - Railway Board which is under the Ministry
of Railways. There are 16 Zones and 68 Divisions in the
Railways. Therefore, the employees working under the
same employer Railway Board working in different
Zones/Divisions are required to be treated similarly and
equally and are entitled to similar benefits and are entitled
to the same treatment. As rightly submitted on behalf of
the respondents, there cannot be any discrimination inter
se. Under the circumstances, on the ground of parity, the
Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern
Railway are entitled to the same benefits which are held to
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 40
be entitled to all the similarly situated Commission
Vendors/Bearers working under different Zones/Divisions.
There cannot be different criteria/parameters with respect
to similarly situated employees - Commission
Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions, but
working under the same employer
8. The Railways/UOI/Railway Board cannot be permitted
to repeat the same arguments which were raised before
different Tribunals, High Courts and also before this Court.
Under the circumstances, the respondents-Commission
Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway shall also
be entitled to the same benefits which the other
Commission Vendors/bearers working in different
Zones/Divisions are held to be entitled to. There cannot be
discrimination among the similarly situated Commission
Vendors/bearers. To deny similar benefits would
tantamount to discrimination and in violation of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.'
3. (1983) 3 SCC 284 [S.V. Rangaiah & Ors vs.
'9. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we find no
force in either of the two contentions under the old rules a
panel had to be prepared every year in September.
Accordingly, a panel should have been prepared in the year
1976 and transfer or promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar
Grade II should have been made out of that panel. In that
event the petitioners in the two representation petitions who
ranked higher than respondents 3 to 15 would not have
been deprived of their right of being considered for
promotion. The vacancies which occurred prior to the
amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not
by the amended rules. It is admitted by counsel for both the
parties that henceforth promotion to the post of Sub-
Registrar Grade -II will be according to the new rules on the
zonal basis and not on the State-wide basis and, therefore,
there was no question of challenging the new rules. But the
question of filling the vacancies that occurred prior to the
amended rules. We have not the slightest doubt that the
posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be
governed by the old rules and not be the now rules."
4. (1991) 4 SCC 139 - [State of U.P. vs. Synthetics and
Chemicals Ltd.]
'41. ........... 'A decision passes sub-silentio, in the technical
sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when
the particular point of law involved in the decision is not
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 41
perceived by the Court or present to its mind.' (Salmond on
Jurisprudence 12th Edn., p. 153). In Lancaster Motor
Company (London) Ltd. V. Bremith Ltd. The Court did not
feel bound by earlier decision as it was rendered 'without
any argument, without reference to the crucial words of the
rule and without any citation of the authority.' It was
approved by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
Gurnam Kaur. The Bench held that, 'precedents sub-silentio
and without argument are of no moment.' The Courts thus
have taken recourse to this principle for relieving from
injustice perpetrated by unjust precedents. A decision which
is not expressed and its not founded on reasons nor it
proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be
a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated
by Article 141. Uniformity and consistency are core of judicial
discipline. But that which escapes in the judgment without
any occasion is not ratio decidendi. In B. Sharma Rao v.
Trite to say that a decision is binding not because of
principles, laid down therein.' Any declaration or conclusion
arrived without application of mind or preceded without any
reason cannot be deemed to be declaration of law or
authority of a general nature binding as a precedent......'
5. (2002) 3 SCC 496 - [Haryana Financial Corporation vs.
Jagdamba Oil Mills]
'21. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact
may make a world of difference between conclusion in two
cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a
decision is not proper.
22. The following words of Hydayatullah, J. in the matter of
applying precedents have become locus classicus: (Abdul
Kayoom v. CIT).
'19. ........ Each case depends on its own facts and a
close similarly between one case and another is not
enough because even a single significant detail may
alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one
should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as laid by
Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the
colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of
the line a case fails, the broad resemblance to another
case is not at all decisive.'
'Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks
the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and
trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost
in thickest and branches. My plea is to keep the path to
justice clear of obstructions which could impede it.'
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 42
6. (2005) 3 SCC 409 -[Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation vs. S.G., Kotturappa]
'24. ............ The question as to what extent, principles of
natural justice are required to be complied with would
depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. The
principles of natural justice cannot be applied in vacuum.
They cannot be put in any straitjacket formula. The
principles of natural justice are furthermore not required to
be complied with when it will lead to an empty
formality..................'
7. (2007) 13 SCC 352 - [Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare
Residential Educational Institutions Vs. Pindiga Sridhar]
'7. ........... By now, it is well-settled principle of law that the
principles of natural justice cannot be applied in a
straitjacket formula. Their application depends upon the
facts and circumstances of each case. To sustain the
complaint of the violation of principles of natural justice one
must establish that he was prejudiced for non-observance of
the principles of natural justice ........... In such admitted
facts, there was no necessity of issuing show-cause notice to
him. The view of the High Court that termination suffers
from the non-observance of the principles of natural justice
is, therefore, clearly erroneous. In our view, in the given
facts of this case, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused
to the respondent. The respondent could not have improved
his case even if a show-cause notice was issued to him.
8. (2016) 14 SCC 267 - [High Court of Punjab & Haryana
Vs. Jagdev Singh]
'11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot
apply a situation such as in the present case. In the present
case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first
instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found
to have been made in excess would be required to be
refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting
for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.'
9. 2018 SCC Online SC 3860 [Ravi Verma & Ors. Vs.
Union of India & Ors.]
'13. In view of the aforesaid decision, the circulars and
regularization of the similarly situated employees at other
places and various recommendation that were made the
services of the appellants ought to have been regularized in
the year 2006; discriminatory treatment have been meted out
to them. As per the decision of Uma Devi (supra), they were
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 43
entitled to regularization of services; they did not serve under
the cover of court's order. Illegality has been committed by
not directing regularization of services.
14. We direct that the service of the appellants be
regularized w.e.f. 1st July 2006 they are entitled to
consequential benefit also let the respondents comply with the
order in a period of three months from today.'
10.(2024) SCC Online SC 227 - [Ushaben Joshi Vs. Union
of India & Ors.]
'17. ......... Keeping in view of the fact that an employee
similarly placed but inducted in service after nearly six years
from the date of employment of the appellant with the
respondent Department has been conferred the benefits of
confirmation in service by way of appointment to the post of
MTS, the appellant is entitled to claim the same benefits.'
[25] With due consideration to the facts and circumstances set
out by the parties and admitted position of law as relied upon and
reproduced herein above, and applying the ratio of the Apex Court, this
Court is of the view that the case of the petitioners are squarely
covered by the Apex Court as the respondents did not deny to the fact
that the respondents have given the financial benefits with
retrospective effect in the past i.e. from the date of promotion.
[26] The plea taken by the respondents that on the date of
DPC held on 03.04.2021 and as on 2019 the effective date of promotion
sought by the petitioners, the promoted faculty members were not
eligible but, were made eligible after the approval of competent
authority for amendment of Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991. But, as
the authority after due consideration on the matter given promotion to
the petitioners w.e.f. 01.02.2019, the respondents could not go back
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 44
and take a stand that the financial benefits should be given with effect
from 24.03.2023.
[27] As the respondents admit that the RIMS authority in
earlier occasion had given the financial benefits to all the promoted
faculty members with effect from the date of promotion, it cannot be
denied that the employees which were promoted and given financial
benefits w.e.f. the effective date of promotion and present applicants
are under the same employer i.e. the respondents. Therefore, the
employees working under the same employer i.e. the respondents
working in different divisions are required to be treated similarly and
equally are entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to the same
treatment as rightly submitted and pointed out by the learned counsel
for the petitioners there cannot be any discrimination inter se. Under
the circumstances on the ground of parity, the petitioners are entitled
to the same benefit which are held to be entitled to all the similarly
situated persons. There cannot be different criteria/parameters with
respect to similarly situated employees working under the same
employer.
[28] For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ
petitions are allowed and quashed the portion i.e. 'as notional date of
promotion without any financial benefits. Financial benefits be given
after 24th March, 2022 in all the promoted faculty members' occurred in
the promotion Order No. B/3343/2020-RIMS(TPS)/1020 dated
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 45
26.05.2022 issued by the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS
for short) and directed the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences
(RIMS) for modification/rectification in the said promotion order and
grant the entitled financial benefits from the date of effective promotion
w.e.f. 01.02.2019 in respect of the petitioners and the same exercise is
to be done within a period of 3 (three) months from the date on which
the respondents receive copy of this order.
[29] With the above finding and direction, the present writ
petitions are disposed of.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Lucy/Bipin
W.P.(C) No. 707 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 605 of 2022,
W.P.(C) No. 606 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2022 Page 46
