Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 5665/2011
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner
Through Mr. Saqib, Adv.
W.P.(C) 5665/2011
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner
Through Mr. Saqib, Adv.
VERSUS
V ALL INDIA CGHS AYURVEDIC PHYSICIANS ASSOCIATION &
ORS. Respondent
Through Mr. V.K. Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. ^ Ravi Kant Jain, Adv.
ORS. Respondent
Through Mr. V.K. Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. ^ Ravi Kant Jain, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
08.08.2011 Mr. Saqib, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the benefit of the Sixth Pay Commission is extended to the Ayurvedic
Physicians of Ayush. However, learned counsel contends that the government has taken a decision to extend extra benefits to Allopathic doctors, which travels beyond the Sixth Pay Commission and hence, Ayurvedic Physicians of Ayusffcannot claim parity. On aperusal of the order passed by the tribunal, we find that the said facet has not been gone into or dealt with by the tribunal.
In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner is
2011:DHC:18212-DB r '<v granted liberty to prefer an application for review under Section
22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. We would request the tribunal to hear the application for review in the open court.
With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of
AUGUST 08, 2011 NAA^KRy/ CHIEF JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, J.
2011:DHC:18212-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
08.08.2011 Mr. Saqib, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the benefit of the Sixth Pay Commission is extended to the Ayurvedic
Physicians of Ayush. However, learned counsel contends that the government has taken a decision to extend extra benefits to Allopathic doctors, which travels beyond the Sixth Pay Commission and hence, Ayurvedic Physicians of Ayusffcannot claim parity. On aperusal of the order passed by the tribunal, we find that the said facet has not been gone into or dealt with by the tribunal.
In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner is
2011:DHC:18212-DB r '<v granted liberty to prefer an application for review under Section
22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. We would request the tribunal to hear the application for review in the open court.
With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of
AUGUST 08, 2011 NAA^KRy/ CHIEF JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, J.
2011:DHC:18212-DB
JUDGMENT