BHUSHAN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, challenge has been posed to the order dated 11.2.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, vide which the Tribunal has dismissed the petition preferred by the petitioner challenging order dated 28.5.2007 (Annexure P-2) depriving the petitioner of higher pay-scale with effect from 1.12.2002 i.e. the date on which persons junior to him were granted the said scale.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner retired as Professor and Head of the Department of Dermatology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGIMER) on 31.12.2004. A decision was taken by the governing body of PGIMER respondent No. 2 to place 25% Professors in the higher pay scale. To determine the eligibility of Professors who were to be placed in the higher pay-scales, guidelines were formulated in the meeting held on 10.1.2002. According to those guidelines, the Professors were to be given higher payscales on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and ACRs with grading 'Good' to be considered eligible for placement in higher pay-scale. Apart from this, merit was to be assessed in the light of over-all contributions towards teaching and research for which it was proposed that a brief curriculum vitae (C.V.) may be obtained from each of the Sr. Professors under consideration. There was a backlog of vacancies which were to be considered for placement of Professors in the higher pay-scale for the year 2002 onwards. A decision was taken in the meeting of the governing body of respondent No. 2-PGIMER on 19.9.2006 to fill up all vacancies and grant higher pay-scale to eligible Professors for the years 2002 to 2006. The petitioner was informed of the said decision dated 19.9.2006 and in response thereto, he submitted his bio-data in support of his claim to be placed in the higher pay-scale with effect from the date the vacancy became available. The Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the DPC) of respondent No. 2 recommended 16 persons to be awarded higher pay scale. The governing body accepted the said recommendations and vide order dated 28.5.2007, awarded higher pay scales to these 16 persons as recommended by the DPC. The name of the petitioner did not find mention in this order while persons junior to him were awarded the higher pay-scale.

(3.) The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act to find out the reason for dis-approval of the claim of the petitioner for the higher pay-scale while granting the same to his juniors. Since, the information so supplied to the petitioner did not disclose any reason for not granting the benefit to him, he served a legal notice dated 30.4.2008 on respondent No. 2-PGIMER and respondent No. 3-the President, governing body of the PGIMER, Chandigarh. On seeing no response to the said notice, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in this Court which was transferred to the Tribunal for adjudication on a notification being issued by the Union of India during the pendency of the writ petition conferring jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, to adjudicate the service matters relating to the said Institute. Written Statement was filed by the respondents wherein the reasons assigned for non-grant of higher pay-scale were the aberrations committed by the petitioner prior to the date of his appointment as a Professor. The Central Administrative Tribunal accepted the stand of the Respondent-PGIMER and dismissed the case of the petitioner vide order dated 11.2.2010.