High Court Relief to PGI Doctors, Upholds their Pension
Chandigarh: In a major relief to PGI Chandigarh doctors who were being denied the benefits of the General Provident Fund-cum-old pension scheme, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, calling for the same.
Earlier the CAT had extended the benefit of the General Provident Fund-cum-old pension scheme to PGI doctors working uninterruptedly in different departments before January 1, 2004.
The case concerns doctors who were first appointed on an ad hoc basis against regular sanctioned posts. They earned all regular increments and were extended benefits of housing and medical care on a par with the regular employees. From 2005-2011, the were appointed on a regular basis maintaining their continuity of work. Their pay, along with past increments, was also protected and carried forward.
However, despite recommendations in their favour by the PGI governing body, headed by the Union Health Minister, the said doctors were denied the benefits of the General Provident Fund-cum-old pension scheme by the Central Government and were included in the new scheme which was a contributory provident fund plan having no element of pension.
Challenging the said government move, doctors went to CAT. The doctors argued that even though regular posts were advertised in 2003 before the new pension scheme came into effect, the delay in regular appointment by the PGI beyond January 1, 2004, came because the PGI selection committee took time. Hence, the delay attributable to the PGI and of no fault of doctors.
The CAT noted that the doctors appointed assistant professors in the PGI against regular sanctioned posts possessed all qualifications and experience to be appointed on a regular basis and performed the same duties.
Allowing the plea, the CAT ruled that the initial date of appointment would be relevant for purposes of coverage under the old pension scheme. In the case in hand, the old pension scheme was in existence, reports Tribune.
The Union of India challenged the CAT decision in the high court. The bench also upheld the CAT order in favour of PGI Doctors
Earlier the CAT had extended the benefit of the General Provident Fund-cum-old pension scheme to PGI doctors working uninterruptedly in different departments before January 1, 2004.
The case concerns doctors who were first appointed on an ad hoc basis against regular sanctioned posts. They earned all regular increments and were extended benefits of housing and medical care on a par with the regular employees. From 2005-2011, the were appointed on a regular basis maintaining their continuity of work. Their pay, along with past increments, was also protected and carried forward.
However, despite recommendations in their favour by the PGI governing body, headed by the Union Health Minister, the said doctors were denied the benefits of the General Provident Fund-cum-old pension scheme by the Central Government and were included in the new scheme which was a contributory provident fund plan having no element of pension.
Challenging the said government move, doctors went to CAT. The doctors argued that even though regular posts were advertised in 2003 before the new pension scheme came into effect, the delay in regular appointment by the PGI beyond January 1, 2004, came because the PGI selection committee took time. Hence, the delay attributable to the PGI and of no fault of doctors.
The CAT noted that the doctors appointed assistant professors in the PGI against regular sanctioned posts possessed all qualifications and experience to be appointed on a regular basis and performed the same duties.
Allowing the plea, the CAT ruled that the initial date of appointment would be relevant for purposes of coverage under the old pension scheme. In the case in hand, the old pension scheme was in existence, reports Tribune.
The Union of India challenged the CAT decision in the high court. The bench also upheld the CAT order in favour of PGI Doctors
Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.