Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 10796/2025, CM APPL. 44693/2025
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.
Through: Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Mr. Samarth Luthra, Advs.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT
16.04.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The respondent joined as Staff Nurse in the Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital[1] on 23 September 2015. The post was later redesignated as Nursing Officer.
2. On 26 September 2023, the Medical Director of the hospital placed the respondent under suspension, purportedly in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965[2]. The suspension was extended, by the Suspension Review Committee, periodically by 180 days each time, with effect from 25 December 2023, 20 June 2024 and “the hospital” hereinafter “the CCS(CCA) Rules” hereinafter 2 August 2024.
3. The respondent petitioned the Central Administrative Tribunal[3] by way of OA 4345/2024, seeking quashing of his orders of suspension as well as orders extending his suspension from time to time.
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent contended that the post of Staff Nurse/Nursing Officer was a Group B post, as it carried a grade pay of ₹ 4600 and that the disciplinary authority in respect of Group-B posts was the Chief Secretary. The suspension order, inasmuch as it had been passed by the Medical Director, was therefore, incompetent. To support this contention, the respondent relied on his joining order dated 28 December 2015, which referred to the post of Staff Nurse as a Group B post in the scale of ₹ 9300-34800 with Grade pay of ₹ 4600 in pay-band-II. He also relied upon Office Memorandum dated 9 April 2009 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, which read thus: “MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Department of Personnel and Training) ORDER New Delhi, the 9th April, 2009 S.O. 946(E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 and clause 5 of article 148 of the Constitution read with rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Department of Personnel and Training number S.O. 332(E) dated the 20th day of April, 1998, and after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in relation to persons serving in the Indian “the Tribunal” hereinafter Audit and Accounts Department, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the President hereby directs that with effect from the date of publication of this order in the Official Gazette, all civil posts under the Union, shall be classified as follows:-
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ classified as follows:- │ │ SL. Description of Posts Classification │ │ No. of posts │ │ (1) (2) (3) │ │ 1. (a) A Central Civil post in Cabinet │ │ Secretary's scale (Rs. 90000- fixed), │ │ Apex Scale (Rs.80000-fixed) and │ │ Higher Administrative Grade plus │ │ scale (Rs. 75500-80000); and │ │ (b) A Central Civil post carrying the Group A │ │ following grade pays:- │ │ Rs. 12000, Rs. 10000, Rs. 8900 and │ │ Rs. 8700 in the scale of pay of Rs. │ │ 37400-67000 in Pay Band-4, and Rs. │ │ 7600, Rs. 6600 and Rs. 5400 in the │ │ scale of pay of Rs. 15600-39100 in │ │ Pay Band-3 │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 2. A Central Civil post carrying the Group B │ │ following grade pays:- │ │ Rs. 5400, Rs. 4800, Rs. 4600 and Rs. │ │ 4200 in the scale of pay of Rs. 9300- │ │ 34800 in Pay Band-2. │ │ 3. A Central Civil post carrying the Group C │ │ following grade pays:- │ │ Rs. 2800, Rs. 2400, Rs. 2000, Rs. │ │ 1900 and Rs. 1800 in the scale of pay │ │ of Rs. 5200-20200 in Pay Band-1. │ │ 4. A Central Civil post carrying the Group D │ │ following grade pays:- (till the posts │ │ Rs. 1300, Rs. 1400, Rs. 1600, Rs. are │ │ 1650 in the scale of pay of Rs. 4440- upgraded) │ │ 7440 in IS Scale │ │ Explanation: For the purpose of this order Pay Band, in relation │ │ to a post, means the running Pay Bands specified in Part-A, Section │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
5. The Respondent further placed reliance on a reply dated 13 May 2024, received by him consequent to information being sought under the Right to Information Act 2005[4], in which it was informed, by the PIO[5] in the Health and Family Welfare Department of GNCTD[6] that, as the post of Nursing Officer was a Group-B post, the disciplinary authority was the Chief Secretary.
6. The Respondent further contended that, as no charge-sheet, initiating disciplinary proceedings, had been issued to him till the date of his filing the OA, the order of suspension was required to be quashed in view of clause (a) of the second proviso to Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, as amended by the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Amendment Rules 2022, which read thus: “Provided further that in a case where no charge sheet is issued under these rules, the total period under suspension or deemed suspension, as the case may be, including any extended period in terms of sub-rule (6) shall not exceed, (a) two hundred seventy days from the date of order of suspension, if the Government servant is placed under suspension in terms of clause (a) of sub-rule (1);”
7. The petitioner, as the respondent before the Tribunal, submitted, per contra, that Advertisement 01/13, pursuant to which the respondent had applied for appointment as Staff Nurse, clearly classified the post as a Group C post with grade pay of ₹ 4600/- in the scale of ₹ 9300-34800. Accordingly, it was submitted that the Medical Director was competent to suspend the respondent. Reliance was also “the RTI Act” hereinafter Public Information Officer “DoHFW” hereinafter placed, by the petitioner, on Circular dated 15 November 2017 issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare[7], GNCTD, which reads thus: “GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE 9TH LEVEL, A-WING DELHI SECRETARIAT, DELHI F.No.342/C-66/2015/H&FW 1201-04 Dated: 15-11-2017 Circular It has been observed that there is necessity to give clear directions regarding classification of the post of staff nurse/nursing officer in view of OM No. 11012/7/2008-Estt (A) dated 09.04.2009 of DOPT, Govt of India. The issue regarding classification of post of staff nurse/nursing officer has been examined by the services department, GNCT of Delhi, Court of Commissioner for persons with Disabilities National Capital Territory of Delhi in the matter of sh. Ranvir Singh Chouhan as well as by Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi in matter of Premlata Gola Staff Nurse. Services Department has advised to treat the post of Staff Nurse/Nursing officer as 'Group-C' vide File No. F.B(241/H&Fw/TRC/2014),till the recruitment rules for the post of staff Nurse/Nursing officer are amended by competent authority. hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi in the matter of Premlata Gola staff nurse has ordered that the post of staff nurse/nursing sister is a 'Group-C' post. Therefore, all HODs of the Hospitals/Medical institution under the health &family welfare department GNCT of Delhi are hereby advised to treat the post of Staff Nurse/Nursing officers as 'Group-C' till further order. Issues with the prior approval of the Secretary, H&FW Department, GNCT of Delhi. Sd/- (Vinod Kumar Singh) Section Officer (HR-Nursing)” “DOHFW” hereinafter
8. In rejoinder, the respondent contended, before the Tribunal, that a Corrigendum dated 15 March 2013 had been issued to Advertisement 01/03, to the effect that the post of Staff Nurse was a Group B post. Reliance had been placed on the Nursing Officer Recruitment Rules, 2023, notified vide notification dated 6 July 2023, issued by the DOHFW.
9. The Tribunal framed the issues arising before it for consideration as, firstly, whether the suspension order dated 26 September 2023 had been issued by a competent authority and, secondly, whether the continuance of the suspension for a period of more than 270 days without any charge-sheet having been issued to the petitioner, was sustainable.
10. On the first issue, the Tribunal held that, in view of the DOPT OM dated 9 April 2009 and the reply dated 13 May 2024, issued to the petitioner under the RTI Act, the post of Staff Nurse (later Nursing Officer) was a Group B post. Reliance was thereafter placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of this Court in GNCTD v. Udal Singh[8], which held that the Chief Secretary was the competent disciplinary authority for officers in the Delhi Administration after the amendment to Schedule II to the CCS (CCA) Rules in 2010.
11. The Tribunal also placed reliance on OMs dated 9 April 2009 and 17 April 2009 issued by the DOPT. The OM dated 17 April 2009 noted that, consequent on the notification of Rule 4 of the Central 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7987 Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 vide Notification dated 29 August 2008, an order classifying posts into Groups A to D, based on the revised pay norms, had been issued on 9 April 2009. Further, the Tribunal observed that the fact that the extension of suspension orders had been issued by the Chief Secretary indicated that it was the Chief Secretary, and not the Medical Director who was competent to place the respondent under suspension and to extend the suspension.
12. Apropos the issue of whether the suspension of the respondent could continue as no charge-sheet had been issued to him within 270 days of the issuance of the suspension order on 26 September 2023, the Tribunal, relying on clause (a) of the second proviso in GSR 156 dated 19 October 2022 issued by the DOPT, held as under:
13. Both the issues were, therefore, answered in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.
14. Aggrieved thereby, the GNCTD has preferred the present writ petition.
15. We have heard Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the respondent.
16. Learned counsel essentially reiterated the contentions advanced before the Tribunal.
17. We are in agreement with the Tribunal that the post of Staff Nurse/Nursing Officer was a Group B post and that, therefore, the suspension of the respondent by the Medical Director was ab initio illegal. Other issues need not, therefore, be gone into.
18. The issue regarding competence of the Medical Director to issue the suspension order dated 26 September 2023 cannot brook any controversy, especially in view of the DOPT OM dated 9 April 2009, which was issued by and in the name of the Hon’ble President of India in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Articles 309 and 148(5) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 6 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. It is clearly stated, in the said order, that every Central Civil post carrying the grade pay of ₹ 5400 would be a Group B post. This order, having been issued in the name of the President, in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Articles 309 and 148(5) of the Constitution of India, would prevail over all other executive instructions. This position was also clarified in the reply dated 13 May 2024 issued to the respondent under the RTI Act.
19. The binding effect of order dated 9 April 2009 was reiterated in DOPT OM dated 17 April 2009 which clarified that the reclassification of Central Civil posts under Groups A to D, consequent to the notification of Rule 4 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules was effected vide order dated 9 April 2009 and that, after 9 April 2009, therefore, the issue of the Group to which any particular civil post would belong had, therefore, to abide by the order dated 9 April 2009.
20. It is obviously for this reason that the petitioner itself issued a Corrigendum on 15 March 2013 to the advertisement, clarifying that the post of Staff Nurse was a Group B post, and not a Group C post.
21. There is no dispute that the competent disciplinary authority, in cases of Group B posts, was the Chief Secretary and not the Medical Director.
22. The initial suspension order dated 26 September 2023 was, therefore, issued by an incompetent authority. It is obviously in awareness of this fact that the orders of extension of suspension were issued by the Chief Secretary. As the Tribunal has correctly noted, if the Medical Director was competent to issue the order of suspension, there was no reason for the Chief Secretary to issue the orders of extension of suspension.
23. Even if the orders of extension of suspension were issued by the competent authority, i.e. the Chief Secretary, they would have no meaning if the original suspension order was issued by an incompetent authority. Flogging a dead horse cannot bring it to life.
24. In that view of the matter, we are in agreement with the Tribunal that the suspension of the petitioner was ab initio void as it had been issued by an incompetent authority.
25. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. APRIL 16, 2026 AR/dsn/aky