Union Of India, v. Dr. Yasoda Thanikachalam,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 30-03-2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR Writ Petition No.24261 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
1. Union of India Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Nirman Bhavan New Delhi- 110011.
2. The Additional Secretary Health & Admin. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Nirman Bhavan New Delhi-110011.
3. The Director General Ministry of Health & Family Welfare CGHS Nirman Bhavan New Delhi-110011.
4. The Additional Director CGHS E II-C Rajaji Bhavan Besant Nagar Chennai-90.
... Petitioners Vs
1. Dr. Yasoda Thanikachalam Retired CMO CGHS 19/47 Kalakshetra Road Thiruvanmiyur Chennai-41.
2. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal High Court Campus Chennai-104.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 02.08.2013 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench in Original Application No.1463 of 2011 and quash the same For petitioner : Mr. A.S. Chakravarthy
For respondents : Mr. V. Parthiban for M/s. Paul & Paul for RR1 and 3 R2- Tribunal
ORDER
The Union of India has come up with the above writ petition, challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal setting aside a communication by which the respondent was marked not as 'very good', but only as 'good' and issuing a consequential direction to notionally promote the first respondent herein to the post of Senior Administrative Grade.
2.
Heard Mr. A.S. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V. Parthiban, learned counsel for the first respondent.
3.
The first respondent herein was originally appointed as a Medical Officer in the Central Government Health Scheme in 1979. She was promoted as Chief Medical Officer in 1993 and was granted non-functional selection grade in the year 2000. She took voluntary retirement with effect from 01-09-2011. 4.
In the year 2006, the first respondent and a few others successfully challenged the appointment of one Dr. Elizabeth Mathews as Additional Director of the Central Government Health Scheme. But, during the pendency of a challenge to the order of the Administrative Tribunal setting aside her promotion, the aforesaid Dr.Elizabeth Mathews retired from service on 30-06-2007. Therefore, the writ petition became infructuous, though she continued in the said post till the date of retirement. 5.
By virtue of being the Additional Director of Central Government Health Scheme, the said Dr. Elizabeth Mathews happened to write the Annual Confidential Report of the first respondent herein. Despite the fact that the performance of the first respondent was consistently rated above the benchmark as 'very good' in the past, Dr. Elizabeth Mathews gave only a grading of 'good'. Consequently, the first respondent was denied Senior Administrative Grade and her juniors got promotion. 6.
Therefore, the first respondent filed an application in O.A.No.1463 of 2011 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said application was allowed by the Tribunal by an order dated 02-08-2013. Challenging the said order, the Union of India is before us.
7.
Even in the writ petition filed by the Union of India, there is no denial of the fact that, (1) that the first respondent successfully challenged the appointment of Dr. Elizabeth Mathews as
Additional Director (2) that despite her protest the said Dr. Elizabeth Mathews wrote the Annual Confidential Report of the first respondent for the period 2006-2007 and that even after pointing this out the superior officers did not rectify the mistake. 8.
Therefore, in the light of the above, the Tribunal was obliged to point out that the case of the first respondent fell within the exception inculcated by the Supreme Court in M.V. Thimmiah and others Vs. UPSC and others(2008 (2) SCC 119). Moreover, the Tribunal had found that as per the Office Memorandum dated 27-07-2010 all Doctors, who came within the zone of consideration for promotion and who had been assessed 'very good' in the preceding five years had been given an opportunity to represent against the lesser grading. The first respondent has always on a higher grading. The only reason why she was overlooked for promotion was the lower grading given to her by the aforesaid Dr. Elizabeth Mathews. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was right in granting relief to the first respondent. 9.
In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar glp To
1. Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Nirman Bhavan New Delhi- 110011.
2. The Additional Secretary Health & Admin.
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Nirman Bhavan New Delhi-110011.
3. The Director General Ministry of Health & Family Welfare CGHS Nirman Bhavan New Delhi-110011.
4. The Additional Director CGHS E II-C Rajaji Bhavan Besant Nagar Chennai-90.
5. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal High Court Campus Chennai-104.
+1cc to Mr.Paul & Paul, Advocate, S.R.No.17731 +1cc to Mr.A.S.Chakravarthy, Advocate, S.R.No.18008 Writ Petition No.24261 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 CTK(CO) CA(16/04/2015)