AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.L. Saraf, J.—The Petitioner is a Homeopathic doctor working as a Research Assistant with Respondent No. 2.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 are all doctors working for Respondent No. 2 and they were drawing non-practising allowance as applicable to their pay scale from the beginning of their joining the service, By order dated 27 Feb, 91, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Health and Family Affairs, passed an order whereby revised non-practising allowance of Respondent No. 3 and other Assistant Research Officers w.e.f. 1.1.86, whereas no such revision had been granted to the PETITIONER who is a Research Assistant and doctors similarly situated. This has acted unjustly and unreasonably against the Petitioner and the Other doctors similarly situated.
Mr. R.K. Purkayastha, learned Counsel submits on behalf of the Union of India that there were two sets of doctors acting in different capacity, increase of non-practising allowance for one set is not prima-facie unreasonable or arbitrary for the other set of doctors and he refers to the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1993 286 para 12 at page 292.
Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that both the set of doctors are practising in the same field though one set is drawing higher salary and higher non-practising allowance. Mr. V.K. Jindal has no grievance as against that. His actual grievance is that though one set of doctors have been granted an increase in the non-practising allowance, the others represented by his client has not been granted such allowance and the same is arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and unfair. According to Mr. Jindal, his client as well as Respondent No. 3 and others are all non-practising and all of them are facing the same problems of increase of inflationary trend, increase of non-practising allowance granted to one and not granted to other, goes against the very basic principles of equality. Mr. Jindal relies on decisions of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1989 1215 and AIR 1991 1367.
Mr. Purkayastha refers to para 15 of his affidavit-in-opposition and tries to make a distinction between the officers and staff. According to Mr. Purkayastha, officers are acting in supervisory capacity and they are allowed non-practising allowance whereas the Petitioner�s and others who are not in supervisory capacity & are granted non-practising allowance on notional basis.
I find no distinction in grant of allowance whether on actual or notional basis assuming the same is notional. The Inflation and increase of price index makes no distinction between the officers and staff. If an increase is granted to officers on account of non-practising allowance, so there should be a commensurate increase of non-practising allowance to the staff as well, as all of them are doctors, doing research work, one set in supervisory capacity and the other exclusively as research scholars.
In view of the above, I direct the Respondent to consider the representations made by them to the Govt. of India and the Respondent No. 1 is directed to increase the non-practising allowance of Research doctors commensurate with the basic salary they are drawing. Such increase should be from the date when increase was granted to the supervisory staff.
The matter is disposed of. There, will be no order as to cost.