AIIMS fined Rs 50,000 for filing frivolous complaint with Delhi HC
New Delhi: In a recent court case, the Delhi High Court was seen reprimanding the apex medical institution of the country and imposing a fine of Rs 50,000 on it on account of filing a frivolous complaint.
The court observed
The case was that of a nurse, who was seeking Voluntary retirement from the institution seeking her inability to work due to her taking care of her ailing aunt staying in United Kingdom. Denied the same by the institution, she resigned and sought release of her pension, gratuity and other retrial benefits but was denied the same on the grounds that she had not completed her mandatory 20 years of service with the government . Since the same were not released, she made a detailed representation to CAT.
At the CAT tribunal, AIIMS further submitted that the respondent had sought to resign from her services and not to seek voluntary retirement on 14.07.2004, and thus, she was not entitled to pension and other retiral benefits.
The Tribunal has rejected all these submissions of AIIMS and AIIMS then approached the Delhi High Court challenging the CAT order
The high court clearly noted that the perusal of the impugned order shows that the said rejection is premised on well-settled legal position and hence passed an order in favour of the nurse, but not before reprimanding AIIMS.
"As noticed above, despite the aforesaid position being the well-settled by a catena of decisions, the petitioner has dragged the respondent to this Court; wasted public money; and the precious time of this Court. We do not approve such a litigious attitude on the part of the petitioner.
In these circumstances, we dismiss this petition with costs of Rs.50,000/-. The costs be paid to the respondent within two weeks."
The court observed
“At the outset, we would like to record our anguish on account of this frivolous petition being filed by the petitioner/ AIIMS. As would appear from the following observations, this petition has been filed despite the fact that the legal position stands well-settled and there was absolutely no doubt about the merit of the respondent’s case.”
The case was that of a nurse, who was seeking Voluntary retirement from the institution seeking her inability to work due to her taking care of her ailing aunt staying in United Kingdom. Denied the same by the institution, she resigned and sought release of her pension, gratuity and other retrial benefits but was denied the same on the grounds that she had not completed her mandatory 20 years of service with the government . Since the same were not released, she made a detailed representation to CAT.
At the CAT tribunal, AIIMS further submitted that the respondent had sought to resign from her services and not to seek voluntary retirement on 14.07.2004, and thus, she was not entitled to pension and other retiral benefits.
The Tribunal has rejected all these submissions of AIIMS and AIIMS then approached the Delhi High Court challenging the CAT order
The high court clearly noted that the perusal of the impugned order shows that the said rejection is premised on well-settled legal position and hence passed an order in favour of the nurse, but not before reprimanding AIIMS.
"As noticed above, despite the aforesaid position being the well-settled by a catena of decisions, the petitioner has dragged the respondent to this Court; wasted public money; and the precious time of this Court. We do not approve such a litigious attitude on the part of the petitioner.
In these circumstances, we dismiss this petition with costs of Rs.50,000/-. The costs be paid to the respondent within two weeks."
Next Story
