GAJENDRA PRASAD SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.7.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.2091/2011. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal by way of the said original application claiming that General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs) should also have the same retirement age as that of non -teaching specialists and public health specialists.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner was that General Duty Medical Officers along with teaching specialists, non -teaching specialists and public health specialists were four separate streams under the Central Health Services. Although their promotional avenues were different in the respective streams upto the grade of Senior Administrative Grade, after reaching the grade of HAG, they all became the same. It was the case of the petitioner that since the age of superannuation in respect of non -teaching specialists and public health specialists had been raised to 62, the age of superannuation of GDMOs should also have been raised from 60 to 62. As this was not done, according to the petitioner, the petitioner, who is a General Duty Medical Officer, was a victim of hostile discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In essence, the prayer of the petitioner was that the age of superannuation of persons in all the four streams should be the same.

(3.) HAVING come to the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the said OA No.2091/2011 filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by that decision, the petitioner is before this Court.