Madras High Court
K.V.Srinivasan vs State Of Tamilnadu on 30 August, 2019
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan, P.T.Asha
W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.08.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.795 of 2018
W.A.No.748 of 2017:-
1 K.V.SRINIVASAN
2 A.MOHAMED KAMALUDEEN
3 S.RAVICHANDRAN
4 S.R.VARGHESE RAJA
5 M.SRINIVASAN ... appellants
Vs
1 STATE OF TAMILNADU
REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH &
FAMILY WELFARE DEPT FORT ST.GOREGE CHENNAI.
2 THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC HEALTH & PREVENTIVE
MEDICINE DMS COMPOUND ANNASALAI CHENNAI.
3 R.ARUNAGIRI
4 S.RAJESHWARANSEKAR
5 V.RAJAMANI
6 K.R.SUBRAMANIAN
7 S.DURAISAMY
8 PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION (LEPROSY) REPBY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY NO.4/9
ARUPPUKOTTAI TK VIRUDHUNAGAR DT
9 S.SIVAGURU
1/28
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017
10 M.PADMANABHAN
11 D.RAGU ... respondents
Writ Appeal filed to set aside the order dated 05.06.2017 passed
in WP.37294 of 2015 and allow the writ appeal.
W.A.No.749 of 2017:-
1 K.V.SRINIVASAN
2 S.RAVICHANDRAN ... appellants
Vs
1 STATE OF TAMILNADU
REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH &
FAMILY WELFARE DEPT FORT ST.GOREGE CHENNAI
600 009.
2 THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC HEALTH & PREVENTIVE
MEDICINE DMS COMPOUND ANNASALAI CHENNAI.
3 THE PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION (LEPROSY) REPBY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY NO.4/9
MUTHURAMALINGAPURAM ARUPPUKOTTAI TK
VIRUDHUNAGAR dated ... respondents
Writ Appeal filed to set aside the order dated 05.06.2017 passed
in WP.1764/2016 and allow the writ appeal.
For appellants : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad,
for Mr.Govardhan
For Respondents :Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, for R-8
Ms.Narmada Sampath, Addl. Advocate General
assisted by Mrs.Sreejeyanthi, Spl.G.P.
for respondents 1 and 2
2/28
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT
(made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.) Introductory :-
The appellants, notwithstanding the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 7 May 2013 in C.A.No.4483/2018 etc. batch covering the field and the fact that their appointments were subsequent to the effective date indicated in the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1507, Health, dated 16 August 1989, by which adhoc rules were framed for the post of Block Health Officer, and that they were not Health Inspector Grade I, as on 1 August 1997, made an unjustifiable claim to extend them the benefits of the judgment dated 13 July 2007 in W.P.No.29794/2007. The claim to extend the benefits of the said judgment and consequential revision of seniority was rejected by the Government. The Writ Petitions challenging the individual orders were dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court.
The summary of facts:-
2. The appellants were initially appointed as Multipurpose Health Assistants. Subsequently, they were all promoted as Health Inspector Grade I. The appellants made a claim before the Government for 3/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 regularization of their services retrospectively, taking into account the orders passed in the case of M/s.D.Dhanasekaran, M.Ramalingam and Janarthanam in O.A.No.3763/1991, O.A.No.7622/1997 and W.P.No.29794/2005 respectively. Before the Government, the appellants contended that respondents 3 to 11 in W.A.No.748/2017 and the contesting respondents in the other writ appeals (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) were promoted to the post of Block Health Officer and P.A. to Deputy Director of Health Services/ Senior Sanitarian without revising the seniority. The appellants made a request to extend the benefits given to Thiru.M.Janarthanam and Thiru.M.Ramalingam and revise the seniority retrospectively. The claim was rejected by the Government by passing individual orders.
3. The appellants challenged the orders passed by the Government before the writ court. The learned Single Judge found that the case of Thiru.Dhanasekaran was a peculiar one as his appointment was well before framing the rules and that he was also qualified for the promoted post. The case of Thiru.A.Ramalingam was not one decided on merits. The failure on the part of the Government to contest the matter made the Tribunal to allow the claim of Thiru.A.Ramalingam, by following the case of Thiru.D.Dhanasekaran. The learned Single Judge 4/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 therefore dismissed the Writ Petitions. The said common order is the subject matter of the intra court appeals.
Submissions:-
4. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the Government disobeyed the orders passed by this Court in the case of Thiru.D.Dhanasekaran and Thiru.Janarthanam as well as Thiru.A.Ramalingam and even flouted the related orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel submitted that even before the integration, the appellants were working as Multipurpose Health Assistants and the Leprosy Inspectors were later included in the seniority list in the bottom. According to the learned counsel, notwithstanding the finality attached to the issue, the respondents were favoured with by giving them promotion. The learned counsel took us through the judgment in the case of M/s.D.Dhanasekaran, Ramalingam, and Janarthanam and contended that the appellants were treated differently both by the Government as well as by the learned Single Judge, notwithstanding the similarity in their case.
5. The learned Senior counsel and the counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents jointly contended that the case of 5/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 M/s.Dhanasekaran and Janarthanam stand on a different footing.
Thiru.Dhanasekaran was appointed well before framing the ad hoc rules and he was also qualified for appointment to the post. He was therefore rightly given promotion. According to the learned Senior counsel and other learned counsels for the parties, the appellants were given appointment only after the effective date prescribed in the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1507, Health, dated 16 August 1989 and as such, they are not entitled to claim treatment similar to the one extended to Thiru.Dhanasekaran.
Analysis:-
6. The Public Health Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, originally consists of Multipurpose Health Workers and Unipurpose Health workers, who were engaged in various schemes for eradication of widespread diseases. The Government considered the issue relating to identification and characterization of multipurpose Health Workers (Male), Multipurpose Health Supervisor (Male) and their inter-se seniority. The Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.1936, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 29 September 1992. The said Government order provides that Multipurpose Health Supervisor (Male) shall be drawn from Health Inspectors, Ordinary and Selection Grade 6/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 and Basic Health Inspectors, qualified and Ordinary and Selection Grade, which is included in Group “A” and Heath Assistants in Kanyakumari District and Sengottai Taluk and Ordinary Grade and Selection grade, Cholera Supervisors and Health Assistants in the Panchayat Unions, Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade. These two categories were included in “B” Group. Similarly, there was C Group, consisting of General Health Inspectors. The Government Order indicates that appointments would be given taking into account the vacancies first from the seniority list of persons in “A” group followed by persons in the seniority list of “B” group and finally by persons in the seniority list of “C” group. The inter se seniority was directed to be fixed with reference to Rule 35(aa) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules.
7. Thereafter, the Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.1507, Health, dated 16 August 1989, prescribing ad hoc rules for the category of Multipurpose Health Workers and Multipurpose Health Supervisors with retrospective effect. The Government Order was made effective 4 November 1988. The basic health workers, Vaccinators and Cholera Workers working under Uni-
purpose Health Scheme were merged and they were appointed as 7/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 Multipurpose Health Assistant (Male). Similarly, Health Inspectors, Basic Health Inspectors, Cholera Supervisors/Health Assistants of Panchayat Union were also merged and appointed as Multipurpose Health Supervisors.
8. The Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.593, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 11 September 1995, reorganizing the Multipurpose Health Workers scheme. The Multipurpose Health Supervisors and Multipurpose Health Assistants were re-designated as Health Inspector Grade I and Health Inspector Grade II respectively. The Basic Health Workers, Vaccinators and Cholera Workers who were absorbed as Multipurpose Health Assistants and have completed 20 years of service were also promoted as Multipurpose Health Supervisors including the Uni-purpose Health Workers. This was done by upgrading the post. The excess workers in the category of Multipurpose Health Supervisor (Health Inspector Grade I) were allowed to continue till the retirement of the incumbent.
9. The Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.320, Health and Family Welfare dated 27 June 1997 in and by which the post of Health Educator, Non Medical Supervisor and Leprosy Inspector 8/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 characterized as Health Inspector Grade I-B were brought under the control of Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine from the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services. Their seniority was maintained separately.
10. There were two categories of Health Inspectors during the time of integration of Leprosy Services with the Public Health Department. The details are given below.
CATEGORY Category I Directly recruited Health Inspector Grade II in Public Health Department after undergoing Multipurpose Health Worker Training (one year period) Category II Health Inspector Grade I B absorbed from Leprosy wing Director of Medical and Rural Health Services.
AVENUE OF PROMOTION
Category I Category II
Health Inspector Grade II Health Inspector Grade I B (Directly recruited at HSC (Re-designated from Leprosy Level) Inspectors) HSC Level.
Health Inspector Grade I ....
Block Health Supervisor Non Medical Supervisor
Technical Personal Assistant Health Educator 9/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017
11. The employees under the first category were appointed directly as Health Inspectors Grade II. Similarly, Health Inspector Grade II on completion of five years of service in the post were declared eligible for promotion as Inspector Grade I as per the ad hoc rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.1507, Health, dated 16 August 1989.
12. The Government, taking into account the integration of Leprosy Services with the Public Health Department, issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.382 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 12 October 2007. The following are the relevant criteria for regulating the services and fixing the inter se seniority.
(i) The Post of Health Inspector Grade – I(B) shall hereafter be designated as Health Inspector Grade I and the scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000 be allowed to them from the date of issue of the order.
(ii) Fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay shall be allowed only from the date of issue of orders under FR23 at the same stage if there is a stage or next stage, if there is no such stage. They are eligible for monetary benefits only from the date of issue of the 10/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 Government Order.
(iii) The above re-designation is subject to the result of Writ Petition No.23893/2006 pending in the High Court of Madras and Writ Petition Nos.6250 and 6251/2006 pending before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
(iv) These re-designated Health Inspector Grade I will be placed in the seniority list of Health Inspector Grade I below the last person of the Health Inspector Grade I already working in the Department. As the re-
designation as Health Inspector Grade I is given only from the date of issue of the order in relaxation of rule relating to possession of sanitary inspectors course, these re-designated Health Inspector Grade I cannot claim seniority now or in future in the post of Health Inspector Grade I from the date of their absorption in the Public Health Department as per G.O.Ms.No.320, Health dated 27.06.1997. 11/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017
(v) The re-designated Health Inspector Grade I cannot claim promotion to the post of Block Health Supervisor, and Technical Personal Assistant till the last person in the existing list of Health Inspector Grade I gets promotion as Block Health Supervisor, and Technical Personal Assistant. However, the existing promotion channel as Non Medical Supervisor and Health Educator shall be allowed to them till their turn for promotion to the post of Block Health Supervisor, Technical Personal Assistant, comes as per their seniority.
13. The Government, taking into account directions issued by the High Court in W.P.Nos.2249 of 2007, issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.73, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 28 February 2008, providing that Health Inspector Grade I having the certificate for Sanitary course or long term Multipurpose Course training certificate issued by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and other recognized alone would be considered for promotion as Block 12/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 Health Supervisors.
14. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.382, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 12 October 2007 which was referred to in the subsequent Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.73, Health dated 28 February 2008 was challenged before the High Court. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment dated 23 July 2010 are extracted below.
25.In any event, the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held in more than one occasion that the relaxation given at the time of initial recruitment could be continued for the promotions also, the promotion could not be denied on the ground that the person did not possess the requisite qualification that was necessary for the purpose of initial recruitment. Hence, we are inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge as well as G.O.(Ms)No.73, Health and Family Welfare (N1) Department, dated 28.02.2008 and accordingly, the same stand set aside. It is made clear that the Health Inspectors Grade I who are not in possession of the Sanitary Inspector Course Certificate or Multi Purpose Health Workers Training Course certificate, are eligible for promotion to the post of Block Health Supervisor from the date on which their juniors were promoted with all benefits.
13/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 xxx The Leprosy Inspectors on integration into Multi Purpose Health Workers as on 01.08.1997 should be treated as Health Inspectors Grade I and they should be given promotion as Block Health Supervisor and Technical Personal Assistant from the date of which their juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits. However, it is made clear that on re-designating the Leprosy Inspectors as Health Inspectors Grade IA / Grade I as on 01.08.1997, they could be placed at the bottom of the seniority of the serving Health Inspectors Grade I as on 01.08.1997.
15. The judgment dated 23 July 2010 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4483 to 4485 of 2013. While confirming the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made certain observations with regard to the factual position consequent to the integration.
16. Thiru.D.Dhanasekaran, who was appointed as Vaccinator with effect from 2 June 1970 and subsequently appointed as Health Inspector on 3 October 1970, approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, challenging the order of regularization of his services on the ground that he possessed the necessary qualification 14/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 viz., Sanitary Inspector Certificate Course and as such, he should have been appointed to the post of Health Inspector retrospectively. The original application was allowed. The Government, in compliance of the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, regularized the services of Thiru.D.Dhanasekaran in the post of Health Inspector with effect from 3 October 1970.
17. Subsequently, Thiru.A.Ramalingam, who was not initially appointed as Health Inspector, filed original application before the Tribunal seeking the very same relief of retrospective regularization, taking into account the date on which he acquired the sanitary Inspector certificate. Before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Government failed to file counter affidavit. The Tribunal therefore directed the Government to treat the case of Thiru.Ramalingam as one similar to Thiru.Dhanasekaran. The original application was allowed, directing the respondents to regularize the service of Thiru.Ramalingam, in the post of Health Inspector, with effect from 1 July 1970 with all consequential benefits. The said order was challenged before Division Bench of the High Court along with an application to condone the delay. The miscellaneous petition was dismissed without condoning the delay. The related Special Leave 15/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 Petition was also dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Thereafter, the Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.359, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 26 April 2004, directing regularization of the services of A.Ramalingam as Health Inspector with effect from 1 July 1970, making it clear that it would not be quoted as a precedent in future.
18. The claim of the appellants both before the Government and the writ court was on the basis of the promotion given to M/s.D.Dhanasekaran and A.Ramalingam.
19. The claim has no factual or legal basis for the following reasons:-
(i) The appointment of the appellants were subsequent to 4 November 1988, the date on which the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1507 Health, dated 16 August 1989 came into force.
Though the appointment of some of the appellants were made before the issuance of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1507, the fact remains that it was made only after the effective date viz., 4 November 1988. The appellants are therefore not eligible to claim the benefits of retrospective regularization. 16/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 19 (ii) Inapplicability of the case of Thiru.Dhanasekaran.
Thiru.Dhanasekaran had completed the Sanitary Inspector Course even in the year 1970. He was eligible for appointment to the post of Health Inspector with effect from 3 October 1970 under rule 10(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. Thiru.Dhanasekaran therefore filed original application before the State Administrative Tribunal. Since Thiru.Dhanasekaran was qualified for appointment to the post of Health Inspector and that there was a vacancy, the Government implemented the order passed by the Tribunal without challenging it before the High Court. The order was issued on 5 March 1996. The precedent in the case of Thiru.Dhanasekaran is not applicable to the appellants for the simple reason that their very appointment was after the effective date prescribed in the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1507 Health dated 16 August 1989. It is also a matter of record that the appellants were not in possession of the required qualification initially. 19 (iii) The peculiar case of Thiru.A.Ramalingam:-
The case of Thiru.A.Ramalingam was one of default. Thiru.Ramalingam filed original application in O.A.No.7622 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for regularization of his 17/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 services in the cadre of Health Inspector with effect from 1 July 1970, the date on which, he was qualified to occupy the post. There was no vacant post to accommodate him as Health Inspector. The Tribunal called upon the Government Pleader to take instructions. The Government Pleader was not in a position to submit his response before the Tribunal. The Tribunal therefore without addressing the issue, straightaway passed the order directing regularization of his services, taking into account the order passed in the case of Thiru.D.Dhanasekaran. There was absolutely no discussion with respect to the merits of the matter. The order was challenged belatedly before the Division Bench. The appeal was dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches. The same was the case of the Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The miscellaneous petition to condone the delay was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was only thereafter, the Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.359, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 26 April 2004 regularizing the services of Thiru.A.Ramalingam in the cadre of Health Inspector. In fact, the Government sanctioned a supernumerary post to give promotion to Thiru.A.Ramalingam, taking into account the order passed by the Tribunal. The case of Thiru.Ramalingam therefore cannot be treated as a precedent for the 18/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 simple reason that it was not decided on merits. The Tribunal notwithstanding the non availability of post, allowed the claim as the Government Pleader was not in a position to submit its response. The case of Thiru.Ramalingam therefore, could not be of any help to decide the claim made by the appellants.
19(iv) Promotion cannot be a matter of right, solely on account of the possession of required qualification :-
(a) The appellants made a claim for promotion contending that they had acquired the Sanitary Inspector Certificate which is the qualification for Block Health Inspector and as such, they should be given promotion from the date of acquisition of such qualification.
(b) There is no question of giving promotion taking into account the qualification acquired by the employees, unless there is a vacancy.
Mere possession of qualification would not entitle the appellants to claim retrospective promotion in a post in which they have not actually worked.
20. The relevant Supreme Court judgment:-
(a) The order dated 7 May 2013 in Civil Appeals 4483 to 4485 of 2013 etc. batch would cover the issue raised in these appeals. The 19/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 judgment dated 7 May 2013 concluded the issue against the appellants.
(b) The High Court by its judgment dated 23 July 2010, quashed paragraph 6(iv) and (v) of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.382 dated 12 October 2007. The High Court ruled in favour of the erstwhile Leprosy Inspectors and directed the Government to fix their seniority in the cadre of Health Inspectors Grade I, by giving the benefit of service from 27 June 1997. It was declared that they are eligible for promotion on completion of five years of service as Health Inspectors Grade I, with a rider that they would be placed in the bottom of the seniority of the serving Health Inspectors Grade I, as on 1 August 1997. It was this judgment which was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4483 of 2013 etc. batch.
(c) The Hon'ble Supreme Court while confirming the judgment dated 23 July 2010, summarized its conclusions in the following words.
i) The integration of Leprosy Inspectors into the Department of Health and Preventive Medicine by G.O.Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997 was complete in all respects.
20/28
http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017
ii) The aforesaid G.O. Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997 did not bring about an amendment in the Statutory Services Rules contained in G.O. Ms. No. 1507 dated 16th August, 1989. The G.O.Ms. was supplementary to the aforesaid Rules and did not supplant the same.
iii) There was no relaxation in the educational qualification for the integration/re- designation of Leprosy Inspectors as Multi Purpose Health Supervisors as the post of Leprosy Inspector was equated with the post of Multi Purpose Health Supervisor. The qualifications prescribed for appointment on the post of Multi Purpose Health Assistants re- designated as Health Inspector Grade II were not applicable for the post of Multi Purpose Health Supervisor.
iv) Since, there was a complete integration of the posts of Leprosy Inspector and Multi Purpose Health Supervisor by virtue 21/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 of G.O.Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997; both categories were entitled to the same treatment. Therefore, Leprosy Inspectors redesignated as Health Inspector Grade IB were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.1350-2000 w.e.f. 1st August, 1997 and the pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000 w.e.f. the same were given to Health Inspector Grade IA, with all consequential benefits.
v) Upon integration vide G.O.Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997, Multi Purpose Health Supervisors and Leprosy Inspectors were to be re-designated as Health Inspector Grade I. The birth mark of the Leprosy Inspector got obliterated with the integration. There could be no further distinction in the cadre of Health Inspector Grade I. There could be no such division as Health Inspector Grade IA and Health Inspector Grade IB.
vi) Since Paragraph 6(iv) and 6(v) of G.O.Ms. No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007 22/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, they have been correctly struck down by the High Court.
vii) The denial of seniority to the re- designated Health Inspectors Grade IB, i.e., erstwhile Leprosy Inspectors on the post of Health Inspector Grade I w.e.f. 1st August, 1997 to 12th October, 2007 violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench of the High Court has correctly concluded that the integrated Leprosy Inspectors, re-designated as Health Inspector Grade IB are to be re-designated as Health Inspector Grade I and to be given seniority as well as consequential reliefs such as seniority and further promotions.
viii) The provision contained in Clause 6(v) of G.O.Ms. No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007 denying promotion of the re-designated Health Inspector Grade I to the post of Block Health Supervisor and Technical Personal 23/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 Assistant till the last person in the existing list of Health Inspector Grade I gets promotion as Block Health Supervisor and Technical Personal Assistant, has been rightly held by the High Court to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
ix) The continuance of the existing promotion channels as Non-Medical Supervisor and Health Educator to the re-designated Health Inspector grade I (erstwhile Leprosy Inspectors) did not amount to bestowing a double benefit upon this category. Therefore, the High Court did not enforce negative equality. The High Court has correctly observed that upon integration and merger into one cadre, the preexisting length of service of the Leprosy Inspectors re- designated as Health Inspector Grade IB had to be protected as it can not be obliterated. Therefore, the Leprosy Inspectors have been correctly placed at the bottom of the seniority 24/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 list of the already existing Health Inspectors Grade I w.e.f. 27th June, 1997. Therefore, it can not be said that benefit has been given to the Leprosy Inspectors/Health Inspector Grade IB /Health Inspector Grade I with retrospective effect.
21. In spite of the conclusiveness reached to the issue, the appellants made an unjustifiable claim, based on the order in the case of Thiru.Dhanasekaran and Thiru.Ramalingam.
22. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1507 dated 16 August 1989 was made effective 4 November 1988. The appellants were all appointed only after the cut off date. The appellants were not Health Inspector Grade I, as on 1 August 1997. They are therefore not entitled to the benefits of the direction to place the erstwhile Leprosy Inspectors (later Health Inspectors Grade I) at the bottom of the seniority of the serving Health Inspectors as on 1 August 1997. 25/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017
23. The appellants made an attempt to revive a lost claim by giving cosmetic changes to the prayer. Their claim was rightly rejected by the Government and the learned Single Judge.
24. For the reasons aforesaid, we dismiss the intra court appeals. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
(K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.) (P.T. ASHA, J.) 30.08.2019 Index: Yes/no tar 26/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 To
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE Department FORT ST.GOREGE CHENNAI.
2 THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC HEALTH & PREVENTIVE MEDICINE DMS COMPOUND ANNASALAI CHENNAI. 27/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.
and P.T.ASHA, J.
(tar) W.A.Nos.748, 749 of 2017 30.08.2019 28/28 http://www.judis.nic.in