- The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand & Ors. V. Sanjay Singh Chauhan &Ors.[Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No .33645/2018] has dismissed the petition challenging the order passed by High Court of Uttarakhand in a writ petition, wherein the State (here petitioner) was directed to release and pay the salaries to the petitioners (here respondents) at par with Allopathic and Dental Medical Officers, within a period of three months from date of such order, along with arrears.
- The petitioners were appointed in Rastriya Bal SwasthayaKaryakram (RBSK) runningunder National Rural Health Mission. The State Government had also employed Ayurvedic, Homeopathic, Dental and Allopathic Medical Officers under the scheme on contract basis.
- The Allopathic and Dental Doctors were given consolidated pay of Rs.48,000/- for Sugam, Rs.52,000/- for Durgam and Rs.56,000/- for Ati-durgam places. The petitioners were paid only Rs.36,000/- for Sugam, Rs.40,000/- for Durgam and Rs.44,000/- for Ati-durgam places.
- It was submitted that there was no intelligible differentia to distinguish the Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Medical Officers as against Allopathic and Dental Medical Officers. There was no rationale as to why the similarly situated persons were being discriminated. The petitioners as well as Allopathic and Dental Medical Officers constituted a homogenous class. The petitioners obtained their degrees from recognized institutions. Their nature of degrees and duration of courses were almost the same.
- It was the contention of the State Government that the case of the petitioners had to be rejected on the ground that they were working on contractual basis.
- The Learned Judge of the High Court relied on the case of BhagwanDass&ors Vs. State of Haryana &ors, where the Apex court had held that if duties and functions of temporary appointees and employees of regular cadre in a particular government department were similar, there could not be any discrimination in payment made to them merely on ground of difference in mode of their selection or that the appointment or scheme under which appointments made was temporary.
- The High Court was of the view that the duties discharged by the petitioners, Allopathic and Dental Medical Officers were of equal sensitivity and quality.Even the responsibility and reliability were the same. The classification done by the Government was held as irrational. Hence, the impugned order was passed.
- Honourable Supreme Court while dismissing the petition, wherein such order was challenged, held that order passed by the High Court was tenable.
"Loved reading this piece by Neeraj?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
