JOGINDER KAUR Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court challenging order dated 24.12.2009 (P.4) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in TA No. 99/CH/2009 dismissing her Original Application. THE petitioner had prayed before the Tribunal that after she was declared medically unfit to perform the duties of 'Dental Room Operation Assistant' then while posting her as Class IV her last pay drawn be protected. of the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 22.8.1987 the petitioner was appointed as 'Dental Room Operating Assistant' in the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the PGI'). His services were regularised on 31.5.1988 in the pay scale of 9501500. On 15.2.1994, the petitioner developed the problem of bronchial asthma and the PGI authorities advised the petitioner to avoid exertion and to perform light duties. In view of the medical advice, the petitioner represented the PGI authorities on 2.5.1994 for assigning her some other job of light nature. A Medical Board was constituted. The Board held a meeting on 2.9.1994 to examine the fitness of the petitioner and submitted its report. On 20/31.10.1994, without supplying the copy of the report of the Medical Board, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice as to why she should not be retired on medical ground and be given invalid pension under the provisions of Central Civil Services (Medical Examination) Rules, 1957 read with Rule 38 of the CCS (Pensions) Rules, 1972. On 15.11.1994, the petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice mentioning that opinion of the Medical Board is wrong and she is perfectly all right to perform her duties. The petitioner only requested for adjustment on some light duties on Class III post. The petitioner submitted that she was ready to even accept Class IV job. The respondent PGI on 12.1.1995 without considering the request of the petitioner for transfer on medical grounds was appointed her to a Class IV post in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940. On 2.2.1995, the petitioner submitted a representation for protection of her pay. She also sent a legal notice through her counsel on 9.8.1995. When no response was received, the petitioner filed CWP No.372 of 1996 on 9.1.1996 which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the representation/ legal notice within a period of two months. On 16/18.3.1996, the PGI authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that her pay was to be regulated under Rule 22(3)(b) of Service Rules and she was to draw the initial pay on the minimum of the time scale. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No. 7579 of 1996 which was transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that appointment of the petitioner on Class IV post was a fresh appointment and not by transfer.

(3.) MS. Rita Kohli learned counsel for the PGI has however submitted that order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality. There is no rule to protect her last pay drawn to support the petitioner's claim. Moreover, it was on her own request that a Class IV post was offered to her. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission and the petition is liable to be dismissed. We find that Section 47 of the Act came up for