New Delhi: The Supreme Court, which has ordered the reinstatement of AIIMS director P Venugopal, has termed as ‘naked discrimination’ and ‘one man legislation’ the Centre's controversial Act, which prematurely retired the eminent cardiologist.
In its 58-page judgement released on Friday, the bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and H S Bedi said Venugopal would be entitled to his pay and other emoluments ‘as he was getting before premature termination of his office from the date of his order of termination’.
66-year-old Venugopal, whose five-year term is due to end on July two, was eased out of office November 2007 following an amendment to the AIIMS Act fixing 65 years as the age of superannuation.
Venugopal and Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss were engaged in a bitter turf war over the control of the prestigious institute.
The apex court struck down the controversial amendment to Section 11 of the AIIMS Act, 2007 by which Venugopal was prematurely retired. It termed the proviso as "unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice".
"There was never any permissibility for any artificial and impermissible classification between the writ petitioner on the one hand and any future director of AIIMS on the other when it relates to the premature termination of the term of office of the director," the bench observed.
The apex court made the observation while upholding the contention of Venugopal that the impugned Act was brought by the Government only with the sole purpose of terminating his service prematurely.
Meanwhile, an embarrassed Ramadoss passed the blame on to the entire Government.
"The amendment was the decision of the Government that was passed by Parliament. It wasn't my personal decision," he stated after the Supreme Court announced its verdict.
With the AIIMS drama finally coming to an end, doctors are hoping to get back to medicine after two years of politics.
Comments
0 comment