KIRANBHAI AMRITLAL DESAI Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has asked for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the Indian Institute of Management Dispensary started functioning originally with appointment of Dr. B.G. Desai in 1963, who was a General Practitioner in Vadaj area of Ahmedabad. He was attending his own dispensary in the evening hours and one Mr. Yogendra Adhvaryu was an Attendant at the dispensary with effect from 1967 and was dispensing the medicines and performing the functions of dressing, first-aid, etc. On account of the increase in strength of the students and staff members, the dispensary started functioning from morning hours and one Dr. R.R. Joshi, MBBS and General Practitioner of Naranpura area was also appointed as Medical Officer in 1976 and along with him, one Mr. Dhanjibhai Patel joined as an Attendant performing the same duty like Mr. Yogendra Adhvaryu. On account of increase in the need at IIM campus in 1979, Dr. B.G. Desai contacted the present petitioner who was interviewed by Dr. V.S. Vyas, the then Director of the respondent Institute and selected the petitioner as Honorary Medical Officer on contract basis in IIM Dispensary with effect from 7.12.1979. On the same day, Dr. Dhanwant Shah, D.Pharm joined as Pharmacist. During the said time, Dr. B.G. Desai started staying at IIM Campus in House No.417 and thereby was attending the dispensary in the evening hours, whereas Dr. R.R. Joshi was staying outside and was attending the dispensary in the morning hours, while the petitioner was staying away from the campus and was attending the dispensary in the morning and evening hours as well as Practitioner. Due to increase in the workload, said Dr. B.G. Desai decided to move out of the campus and Dr. R.R. Joshi refused to stay in the campus, the petitioner was requested by the Institute to stay in the campus and as such, has started staying in the campus in House No.T-11 and started working as Resident Medical Officer but on same terms. The petitioner was still allowed continuing and practicing at his earlier residence in Vikram Apartment in Shreyas area and was attending both the campus as well as his private dispensary. By giving the details with regard to his merit, the petitioner has submitted that he was issued with letters from time to time, informing that his contract as Honorary Medical Officer has been extended for a further period, specified therein, and the grievance of the petitioner is that he was continued on Honorary Medical Officer status from time to time and no-doubt, honorarium has been extended from time to time as indicated in the petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite long standing career in serving with the respondent IIM, the petitioner has been paid a consolidated remuneration per month of Rs.75,000/- with effect from 1.7.2020, over and above was paid consolidated remuneration for one month as bonus and medical reimbursement. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has served the respondent for a period of more than 40 years with utmost honesty and sincerity practically as full time Resident Medical Officer, he is not considered at par with the other regular permanent employees employed by the respondent Institute. The employees working under the petitioner in the dispensary are considered as regular employees and are entitled for revision of pay scale and other monetary benefits, whereas despite written representations from time to time, the respondent Institute had neither considered the same nor given any benefit and as such, submitted his last representation on 24.1.2020 requesting to continue him upto the age of 70 years with other monetary benefits.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the Director of the respondent Institute appreciated and acknowledged the long meritorious service vide letter dated 6.2.2020 but refused to grant request as prayed for, which has constrained the petitioner to submit another representation dated 5.3.2020 for seeking several benefits and to continue him till the age of 70 years at par with the other Central Government Institutes, etc. In addition to the aforesaid written representations, in the month of March 2020, another representation was submitted to the Chairperson of the Grievance Committee with regard to his claim, date of his retirement, his eligibility with respect to pay scale at par with other regular employees in the Institute and also to treat him as regularly appointed permanent employee, i.e. Full Time Resident Medical Officer of the Institute and to furnish all other incidental benefits with retrospective effect. In the past, the Medical Officers were continued beyond the age of 70 years as mentioned by him in the representation and by giving comparison of other employees' pay structure and status, a request was made to consider his case and since the same having not been paid any attention, present petition is brought before this Court for seeking the aforesaid reliefs since the tenure of the contract was to over by March 2020. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner has narrated some more details, but the main grievance which is voiced out is that though he is appointed as Honorary Medical Officer, he is to be treated as regularly appointed permanent employee, i.e. full time Resident Medical Officer and by treating him as such, give all monetary benefits which are attached to such post as if permanent and regular appointee with effect from his joining in service.