Anti-quota stir: SC slams govt on salary cut
When the government came on May 29, you were on your knees. After the strike is over, you say no work no pay" -- SC to govt.india Updated: Jul 07, 2006 15:57 IST
The Supreme Court on Wednesday took strong exception to the government's decision not to release salary of the doctors who took part in an anti-quota stir, saying it should act like a model employer.
"What is this Mr Vahanvati (solicitor-general)? The government says something at one point in time and... When the government came on May 29, you were on your knees. After the strike is over, you say no work no pay," a bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and L.S. Panta observed.
The court said at the time of passing the order, the government had said no action whatsoever would be taken against the doctors and that it simply wanted them to resume work as patients were suffering.
The court said but for the assurance given by the gov- ernment it would have an passed order on this point also. The court wondered if the concept of 'no work no pay' was not known to the Government till May 28 and observed that it was not expected from the gov- ernment. The court ordered the doctors' absence from work shall not be taken note of for the purpose of their comple- tion of training and internship and appearance in post graduate examination. The court fixed July 17 to hear the doctors' plea after Solicitor General GE Vahanvati sought time to seek instructions from the govern- ment on the question of releas- ing the salary for the strike period (May 14 to June 3).
HC notice to Centre, AIIMS
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre and AIIMS on a petition seeking dissolution of the governing council headed by Union Health Minister A Ramadoss. Justice Anil Kumar granted four weeks' time to the government to file its reply and posted the matter for further hearing to August 24.
During the brief arguments, senior counsel Rajiv Nayar appearing for the petitioners alleged that nomination of Union Minister and Secretary, Health to the Gov- erning body was in total violation of the appointment and nomination rules prescribed for the Institute under the statute. It was submitted that Section 4 (G) of the Act precluded the nomination of any Member of the Cabi- net to the Governing Council, with a view to protect the Institute's autonomy besides ensuring insulation from political interference and government control.