NEW DELHI, JULY 29: Delhi High Court today allowed further time till October 10 to the Centre to take a final decision on the new pay scales to senior doctors of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), who were given revised salaries by the court by in an interim order in March.
Government counsel Rakesh Tiku in an application filed before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S N Variava and Justice S K Mahajan said the government could not take a final decision within the deadline of June 30 set by the court as it needed more time to discuss the matter.
Seeking two months’ further time to resolve the issue, the government said it received "responses" to the offer made to AIIMS faculty only on July 5 and "the matter is being considered seriously at various levels before a final picture can emerge."
Clarifying the reason for the delay, Tiku said AIIMS faculty members had sought the offer from the government in writing so that it could convey its reaction too in writing.
The High Court by an interim order on March 3 had directed the government to implement the K K Baksi Committee recommendations for higher pay scales to the senior doctors of the premier institution from March 1 this year.
The court had also directed the government to pay the arrears to the doctors from January 1, 1996 to February 28, 1999 as per its notification of January 21 this year in which it had accepted some of the proposals of the Baksi Committee.
The interim order had ended the 17-day old strike by the Faculty Association of AIIMS (FAIMS) for implementation of the Baksi Committee report in February.
The court had also directed the government to inform it (the court) about implementation of its direction and set a deadline of June 30 for a final decision on the entire pay package to the doctors.
The court had intervened in the matter after advocate Arun Kaushal and Mohammed Sajjit filed a public interest litigation seeking to end the strike which had completely paralysed health services in the institute.
The government has also challenged the High Court interim directions through a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.