NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday criticised the Centre for inordinate delay in sanctioning salary to the doctors of the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences here for the period between May 14 and 30 despite the Court passing an order directing payment of salary for the strike period. A Bench consisting of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta directed the Centre to file an affidavit in two weeks giving the reasons for the delay and the officials responsible for it.

On a petition from the Resident Doctors' Associations of Maulana Azad Medical College and the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences the Court, by an order dated July 17, had directed payment of salary to the medicos who were on strike. Since the order was not implemented, they filed a contempt petition.

When the contempt petition was taken up for hearing on Monday, Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam brought to the notice of the Court that an order had been issued on August 19 directing payment of salary to the doctors for the period May 14 to 30 immediately.

To a question from the Bench about the reasons for the delay, Mr. Subramaniam said approval of the Union Cabinet had to be obtained.

The Bench replied: "It is strange that you require Cabinet clearance even after we passed the order. We don't expect such a statement from you."

Senior counsel Harish Salve appearing for the doctors said the attitude of the Government seemed to be that for everything the doctors should get an order from this Court. ``This is ego problem," he said and added that those responsible for sitting over the file and the delay should be found out.

The Bench told Mr. Subramaniam: ``The least you could do is to haul up the officials for dereliction of duty for flouting the orders of this Court." The Bench referred to the last paragraph of the order issued on August 19 for payment of salary, which said: ``It shall not be treated as a precedent.''

Lambasting the officials concerned who issued such an order, the Bench said: ``Do they think that they are above the orders of this Court?"

The Bench said: ``In our July 17 order we have never said that it will not be treated as a precedent. We have made it clear that the order was being passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. While so, how can the officials say it shall not be treated as a precedent?''

In its brief order the Bench said no explanation had been offered why there was a delay of more than one month for carrying out with the direction passed by this court on July 17 and why the order was issued on August 19 (for payment of salary) after a contempt petition was filed.

The Bench, while closing the contempt plea, directed the Centre to file an affidavit in two weeks giving reasons for the delay and those responsible for it; the action taken against the officials concerned, if not, what action was proposed.

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