|
Listening to a complaint from resident doctors, the Supreme Court (SC) rebuked
the Federal Government for breaking its promise during the anti-reservation
strike of not initiating “punitive” action against doctors if they
stopped their strike.
The SC ended the strike of on May 29 saying that it would examine the
reservation plan for Other Backward Classes (OBC) and asked the doctors to go
back to work. At that time the government counsel gave a categorical assurance
that it will not initiative punitive action against the doctors if they went
back to work. The SC was incensed when it found out that the Health Ministry
issued directions to the AIIMS authorities to withhold salary of doctors for
the 19-day strike period and also concluding that the loss of days by junior
doctors during the agitation would be considered a shortage for completion of
internship and therefore disallowing them to complete their post-graduate
exams.
The SC asked Solicitor-General G E Vahanvati whether the Health Ministry knew
that it would cut back pay of striking doctors when it pledged that it will not
initiate any punitive action. Castigating the Government, the SC said “When the
government came (before the court) on 29 May, it was on its knees and said this
and that should be done (to end the strike). The government says something at
one point of time and something else at the other.” Sharply reprimanded the
counsel for its "double-faced" attitude, it asked the counsel to tell the
Government “to be a model employer.”
The SC allowed the Solicitor-General time till July 17 to take instructions
from the government about its position on pay withholding and other punitive
action.
|
