W.P.(C)/14112/2018 of DR R B S TYAGI Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS on 31 December 2018

$~8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(C) 14112/2018 & CM APPL. 54981-54982/2018

DR R B S TYAGI

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr. Sahib G.S. Mahendru, Mr.Siddhant Rai Sethi and Mr. D.Meneges, Advocates alongwithpetitioner in personSiddhant Rai Sethi and Mr. D.Meneges, Advocates alongwithpetitioner in person

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:Mr. Arti Bansal, Advocate forRespondents nos. 1 and 2Respondents nos. 1 and 2

Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr.UditKokantnankar, Advocates forRespondent nos. 3 and 4

Mr. G.D. Mishra, Standing Counselfor Respondent no.5/East DelhiMunicipal Corporation CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALANHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R%31.12.2018

CM APPL.54982/2018 (for exemption)

Application is allowed, subject to just all exceptions.

Application stands disposed off accordingly.

CM APPL.54981/2018 (for stay)

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 28.12.2018 passed bythe Central Administrative Tribunal whereby his interim application forcontinuing in service until the age 65 years has been rejected.

Learned counsel for petitioner relies upon the judgement of this Court dated 14.10.2014 inW.P.(C) 2780/2011 tiled as Dr. Chandra ShekharSahukar Vs. Union of India, wherein this court had noted that the PayCommission recommended complete parity between the conditions of theservices of Dentist and Veterinarians. On this basis, this Court had directedthat Veterinarian Officers such as the petitioner be granted the benefit of theDynamic Assured Career Progression Mechanism. By the order of theHon’ble Supreme Court dated 30.01.2018, challenge of the Union of Indiato the said judgement was rejected Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon an order of theHon’ble Division Bench dated 28.08.2018 passed in the case of anotherVeterinarian Officer,W.P.(C) No. 9042/2018 (Dr. Jagbir Singh Vs. Unionof India), wherein, by way of an interim arrangement,this court hadaccepted the contention of the petitioner that he would be willing to continuein service without receiving another salary and had directed accordingly.

Learned counsel for respondents submit that as of now there is noorder of the Union of India to extend the age of the retirement ofVeterinarian Doctors from 60 to 65 years of age. It is also pointed out thatthe case ofDr. Jagvir Singh Vs. Union of India and Dr. M.L. SharmaVs. Union of India, in W.P.(C) 9042/2018 and W.P.(C) 11495/2018(respectively) were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2018,with leave to the petitioner to make representations to their employer, and direction to the concerned respondents to deal with the representations of thepetitioners within a specific time frame. The interim order dated 28.08.2018in W.P(C) No. 9042/2018 was vacated.

In view of the fact that no orders have been issued in respect of theenhancement of the retirement age of Veterinarian Doctors, we are notinclined to interfere with the interim order passed by the Tribunal. Ifpetitioner succeeds before the Tribunal, consequential orders will be passedby the Tribunal in this regard. However, keeping in mind the petitioner’scontentions, the judgement passed by this court in Dr. Chandra ShekharSahukar(supra) and the enhancement of the retirement age in respect ofDoctors of the Ayush Department, we request the Tribunal to dispose ofO.A. preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this order.The impugned order records that the O.A. is already listed on 07.01.2019, The writ petition is disposed of.

PRATEEK JALAN(VACATION JUDGE)

ECEMBER 31, 2018savita

SANJEEV NARULA(VACATION JUDGE)