Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Jan 13, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
Google



New Delhi
News: ePaper | Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |

New Delhi Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

Court notices to MCD chief

Staff Reporter

On doctors’ plea challenging an MCD order


The officials asked to file their replies by April 24

“June 15 order in contempt of a 1998 High Court order”


NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has issued notices to A. K. Nigam and Renu K. Jagdev, Commissioner and Director (Personnel) respectively of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, on a petition by a group of General Duty Medical Officers-Grade-II challenging an administrative order of the civic body altering an earlier order in connection with regularisation of services of these doctors.

Issuing the notices, Justice M. K. Mishra asked the two officials to file their replies by April 24.

The petitioners through their lawyer R. K. Saini submitted that the order issued on June 15 last year by the Director (Personnel) was in contempt of a High Court order passed in 1998.

Following the High Court order, the civic body had regularised the services of the doctors from the date of their appointments in 2000.

But it suddenly issued an administrative order in June last year stating that “the matter has been re-examined in detail and in order to remove the anomaly that has cropped up in the regular appointment with regard to these doctors and to comply with the orders of the Supreme Court, it is ordered that the regularisation of all these doctors will take effect from the date of the communication for the same by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).”

Dates changed

Accordingly, the date of regularisation of the petitioners had been changed from the dates of appointments (1986-1989) to the date of the recommendation by the UPSC (1991), the MCD order said.

The respondents had wilfully and deliberately committed a gross contempt of the Court by issuing the order, the petitioners said.

Liable to punishment

The respondents had violated the order of this Court in a most obstinate manner and were guilty of committing a gross contempt of the Court in a blatant and flagrant manner without any fear or worry, the petitioners submitted.

They were, therefore, liable to be suitably punished for the same, for restoring public confidence in the power and authority of the Court and upholding the majesty of the law, the petitioners contended.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail



New Delhi

News: ePaper | Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary | Updates: Breaking News |


News Update



The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu