MRIDULA SINHA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three OAs have been filed by the same applicant who is a Senior Medical Officer under Central Government Health Scheme. In the OA 875 of 2012 The applicant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 28.09.2012 [Annexure -A/12] and order dated 25.07.2011 [Annexure -A/9] and seeks for pay protection while fixing her pay on her permanent absorption in CGHS looking to the pay she was getting before her absorption as contained in annexures -A/6 and A/7.

(2.) FOR convenience, the pleading of OA 905 of 2012 are being discussed as the issues involved in this OA shall virtually decide the contentious issues raised in other OAs. Applicant's case in short runs, as follows:

(3.) BEFORE delving into the merit of the contentious issues raised by the applicant, the most vital letter dated 10.03.2010 [Annexure -A/5] issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare needs to be addressed first, which set the platform for the present litigation. The letter was issued in connection with absorption of Dr. [Mrs.] Mridula Sinha, Senior Medical Officer of Central Coal Fields Limited, Ranchi, who was on deputation to CHS, for appointment on absorption basis for the e post of Senior Medical Officer in the Central Health Service under the Rule 8 of the Central Health Service Rules, 1996. There were several conditions in the said letter including pay scale and about contribution towards Central Government Group Insurance Scheme, 1980 as per rates prescribed by the Government according to rules and she was required to furnish copy of 'No Objection Certificate' from the parent department. There was further stipulation in the said letter that she will be treated as Direct Recruit in the grade of Senior Medical Officer and her seniority will be further subject to DOPT OM dated 03.10.1989 and will also be subject to the orders issued by the Government in consultation with the UPSC on the basis of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment December, 1999 in the case between Delhi Police Personnel on deputation vs. Union of India. After undertaking the stipulations, the applicant was absorbed in CGHS with effect from 11.03.2010 vide notification dated 20.09.2010. So, once the applicant accepted the terms and conditions of her appointment and as she was absorbed in CGHS on a specific pay scale applicable to the post, she was holding, she cannot claim pay protection or previous service benefit of her parent department. That apart, since she is treated as a new entrant of 2010, she has to be guided by new Pension Scheme applicable to Central Government Employees after 01.01.2004 and cannot be treated to be governed by Old Pension Scheme of 1972. The applicant need not forget that her entry in CGHS is an lateral entry, which jeopardizes the prospect of promotion of direct entrants of doctors in the lower cadres but she claims more, what has been extended by a benevolent employer, [like other Central Government Departments]. Even the letter dated 15.02.2010 of CCL, her parent organization, she was given pro -forma promotion, naturally in the higher scale of Rs. 32900 -58000 subject to her assuming the higher post at CCL after being repatriated from CGHS, Patna. The applicant did not abandon her deputation post and rather on her own volition, accepted the offer of Central Government and now claiming something which is not permissible under the Rules. The applicant has referred to Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, OM No. F1[11] -E III[B]/69 dated 29.01.1970 read with GOI, MHA, DP & AR, OM No. F1[1] Estt.[P[II]/81 dated 21.02.1983 regarding fixation of pay on permanent absorption in ex -cadre posts, and claimed pay protection. These orders relate to Govt. servants getting absorbed in ex -cadre posts and not to the employees of undertakings getting absorbed in Government. In a nutshell, the applicant is neither entitled to pay protection nor entitled to past service benefit during her deputation period nor entitled to be treated under Old Pension Scheme of 1972. Hence ordered.