J.S. CHHABRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior in TAs Nos. 75 and 91of l991.

(2.) DR . Tiwari, respondent herein, was initially appointed as a Research Assistant on 25.3.1968. On 1.12.1969 he was appointed as a Demonstrator in Surgery in G.R. Medical College of Gwalior. By a government order dated 11.8.1971 he was appointed along with some other doctors to officiate temporarily as a Casualty Medical Officer (Lecturer Grade) in Madhya Pradesh Medical Service Class II in the pay scale of Rs. 360 -700. This appointment was subject to his selection by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. Claiming that as a CMO he was also doing the work of teaching in the Medical College and like other lecturers he was also paid non -practising allowance, he made a representation to the Government on 17.1.1984 for being absorbed in the post of lecturer and for counting his seniority as a lecturer from 11.8.1971. As the Government did not consider his representation and further representations made thereafter he filed a petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 1987 for obtaining the said reliefs. During the pendency of that petition the services of seven ad hoc CMOs (Lecturer Grade), including the respondent, were regularised under the M.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment Rules, 1986 and he was appointed on the same post on temporary basis. On 21.7.1989 the Government passed an order declaring him as a Lecturer in Surgery. In view of these subsequent developments the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed his petition as infructuous. As his service as CMO was not counted for considering his seniority as a lecturer and also because his name was not included in the gradation list of lecturers published on 9.6.1989, he first approached the Government and then the High Court by way of a writ petition. That petition was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal and was numbered as TA No. 91 of 1991. Dr. J.S. Chhabra (Appellant in Civil Appeals Nos. 6590 -91 of 1995) had applied to intervene in that petition and his application was granted. Thereafter on 15.9.1990 he filed a substantive petition (MP No. 2265 of 1990) in the High Court challenging recognition of Dr. Tiwari and others as lecturers. It was also transfer(ed to the Tribunal and numbered as T A No. 75 of 1991.

(3.) THE Tribunal was much impressed by the three circumstances namely, (1) Dr. Tiwari was a duly qualified doctor and right from the date of his appointment as CMO he was assigned teaching work (2) he was paid non -practising allowance, and (3) the object behind upgrading the post of CMO on which Dr. Tiwari was appointed. It was of the view that these three circumstances could not have been overlooked and the Government could not have subsequently changed the position to the prejudice of such CMOs. The doctors who were appointed as CMOs could not have anticipated then that they would be treated differently from lecturers in future in matters of promotion and other service benefits. It held that after regularising their services and giving them the status of full -fledged lecturers it was improper and unfair on the part of the Government not to treat them as lecturers. Invoking the principle of continuous officiation it further held that such CMOs became entitled to seniority from the date of their continuous officiation. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the application filed by Dr. Tiwari and directed the authorities to give him seniority in the post of lecturer with effect from the date he had started working as CMO (Lecturer Grade). The inconsistent condition regarding the date from which _his seniority is to be counted, contained in the order dated 21.7.1989, has also been quashed. The Tribunal also directed the authorities to consider him for promotion to the post of Reader. T.A. No. 75 of 1991, filed by Dr. Chhabra was dismissed. Therefore, Dr. Chhabra has filed two appeals, one against the order whereby T A No. 91 of 1991 has been allowed and the other against the order whereby TA No. 75 of 1991 has been dismissed. The State has also filed Civil Appeal No. 6592 of 1995 feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 91 of 1991.