UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus DR. AKHILESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1139 · Decided: 27-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
DR. AKHILESH CHANDRA AGRA WAL 
FEBRUARY 27, 1998 
B 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Central Health Service Rules, 1982: 
c 
Supernumerary-Post-Administrative powers-Conferment a/-
Administrative Tribunal held that supernumerary post was different from 
·regular post and did not carry with it administrative powers-Held: This 
view of the Tribunal cannot be sustained-Hence rejected-Central Health 
Service Rules, 1963. 
D 
The appellants were originally appointed as ad hoc group 'B' Doctors 
under the Central Health Service Rules, 1963. After the first year of service 
the appellants continued in service in consultation with the Union Public 
Service Commission. After the Central Health Service Rules, 1982 came E 
into. force the posts were classified as Medical Officers, Senior Medical 
Officers and Chief Medical Officers. All these Medical Officers were brought 
under on Group, namely, Group 'A'. Group 'B' was totally abolished. In spite 
of the appellants making repeated representations for regularisation, the 
appellants could not get any response from the authorities. 
The appellants, therefore, filed a writ petition before the High Court 
for regularisation which was dismissed. However, this Court granted leave 
and directed that the appellants would be treated as regularised in G_roup 'A' 
of the Central Health Service. This Court further directed that the appellants 
would be promoted only to supernumerary posts. 
The respondents (directly recruited doctors) filed a petition before the 
Central Administrative Tribunal claiming that they alone should be given 
administrative powers. The Tribunal allowed the petition and held that the 
supernumerary post was different from regular posts and did not carry with 
F 
G 
it the administrative powers. Hence this appeal. 
H 
I 139 
1140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] I S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : l. The view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal that 
those appointed in the supernumerary posts cannot claim the administrative 
powers as that will only go with the regular posts is wrong. The Tribunal's 
view treating supermerary posts as different from the regular posts cannot 
B be sustained. Therefore, the Tribunal was not right in conceding the claim 
of the respondents (directly recruited doctors) that they alone should be 
given the administrative powers. (1145-A) 
D.K. Reddy v. Union of India, JT (1995) 4 SC 432, relied on. 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14747 of 
1996 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.96 of the Central Adminstrative 
Tribunal, Allahabad in 0.A. No. 1744of1993. 
D 
N.N. Goswami, C.S. Vaidyanathan, Ashok K. Srivastava, D.S. Mehra, 
K.V. Viswanathan, K.V. Venkataraman, Shakil Ahmed Syed, R.S. Massey Verma 
and K.B. Hina for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
VEN KAT ASWAMI, J. These two appeals by special leave arise out of 
one order of the Central; Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, dated 
23. I .96 made in O.A. No. 1744of1993. 
Civil Appeal No. 1477/96 was preferred by the Union of India and Civil 
F Appeal No. 14573/96 was filed by the aggrieved individuals against one and 
same order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. 
The subject-matter of dispute before the Tribunal related to a letter 
dated 17.10.93 issued by the Deputy Director Admn. (CGHS), New Delhi, to 
the Deputy Director, CGHS, Kanpur. The letter impugned before the Tribunal 
G reads as follows :-
"No. A-32018/4/93/CHS. II 
Directorate General of Health Services 
H 
New Delhi, dated the 12.10.93, 17.10.93 
l 
To 
U.0.1. v. DR.A.C.AGRAWAL [K. VENKATASWAMl,J.] 
The Deputy Director, 
CGHS, 117 /6 l 7, Pandu Nagar, 
Kanpur. 
1141 
A 
Sub: CGHS, Kanpur-Clarification regarding fixation of seniority of B 
-<-
Chief Medical Officers-Reg. 
Sir, 
I am directing to refer to your letter No. 2-3/90-CGHS/KNP/1876, C 
dated the 27th August, 1993 on the subject mentioned above and to 
say that the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, to whom the case 
was referred, have clarified that for the pmpose of inter-se-comparison 
between initially regularly appointed doctors and beneficiaries in tem1s 
of Dr. Rawan.i 's, case judgment, precedence will be given to those D 
r 
who have an earlier date/deemed date of regular appointment. The 
actual date of issue of orders of organisation is not relevant in these 
cases. 
.... 
Copy to:-
Additional Di
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.