The Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court noted that the state was being discriminatory while denying a 4-tier pay scale to the Veterinary officers on the basis that they deal with Animals while the MBBS doctors under the Health and Family Welfare department who are at the same position deal with Humans.
Brief Facts:
All the petitioners in the current case are duly qualified and have been appointed as Veterinary Officers on a contractual basis pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPPSC) and thereafter their services got regularized. As per the notification and guidelines of the Finance Department, for a 4-tier pay scale, the placement of service of each officer was to be counted from 4,9, and 14 years from the date of regularization and then only the grant of benefit can be made pursuant to the completion of such service years. However, the period during which these officers served on a contractual basis before regularization has not been counted in their years of service. The same has been challenged by the petitioners through this petition.
Contentions of the petitioner
It has been contended by the petitioners that they are being wrongfully deprived of their right to a 4-tier pay scale. It has been further contended that the Respondent-State has wilfully ignored the term of contractual services of the Veterinary Officers but not of their counterparts who come under the categories of H.P. Health Services Class-1: General and Dental Class both as well as the regular class of Veterinary officers, thereby leading to this fact-in issue.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents have contended that the petitioners cannot be counted as equivalent to the medical officers in the Health and Family Welfare Department for the purpose of granting a 4-tier pay scale as the petitioners are dealing with animals, whereas the Doctors of the health department are dealing with humans, where stakes are much higher. The respondent side further explains how there cannot be a principle of equal work for equal pay in the current case as MBBS doctors and Veterinary Officers are very different. And further, they have also contended that the appointments are on a contractual basis in the state and such services are regulated as per the terms prescribed in the agreement as well as column no. 15 -A of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the concerned post.
Observations of the Court:
The Court referred to the case of Dr. Arun Sirkeck and ors. V. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009) to highlight its ruling where the State was directed to count ad-hoc services of Veterinary officers appointed on a contractual basis at par with Medical Officers under Himachal Pradesh health Service Class-1. Several other judgments have been referred by the court where it was held that Veterinary Officers cannot be differentiated from MBBS doctors in terms of counting of ad-hoc service and also for the grant of NPA.
Then the court concluded that in the current case as well the Veterinary Officers cannot be denied a grant of a 4-tier pay scale on the ground that they deal with animals. The Court further observed that State has discriminated against the Veterinary officers appointed on a contract basis on the lines of Article 14 thereby leading to a gross violation of the principle of equality.
The decision of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court quashed and set aside the decision of the cabinet. Additionally, the respondent-State was directed to count the services of the petitioners rendered on a contractual basis before their respective regularization for benefit under the 4-tier pay scale like the same has been extended to other medical officers (Generalist, Dental, and Regular Veterinary Officers). The State has also been directed by the court to pay the monetary benefits within 90 days from the date of judgment, failing which the State shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 7.5% thereon till its realization.
Case Title: Pankaj Kumar Lakhanpal & ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh
Case No.: CWP No. 1599/2020 a/w 1686, 1687, 1688, 1695, 1696 & 1851/2020
Advocates for the Petitioner:
Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Senior Advocates with Mr. Peeyush Verma, Mr. Satish Sharma, Mr. Devender K. Sharma & Mr. Tejasvi Dogra, Advocates.
Advocates for the Respondent:
Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Y. W. Chauhan, Sr. Addl. A.G., Mr. I. N. Mehta, Sr. Addl. A.G., Mr. J. S. Guleria, Dy. A.G., Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer for respondent-State.
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments