Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sh. Shekhar Sharma vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 22 March, 2017
���10030817220317060.txt�C:\Users\NeeruDougall\Desktop\uploading folder\10030817220317060.txt����;���C:\Users\NEERUD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\10030817220317060.txt�J ��CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
OA No. 060/00308/2017
Date of order : 22.03.2017
CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER(J)
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA,MEMBER(A)
1.
Sh. Shekhar Sharma, age 45 years s/o Sh. N.R. Sharma
Sr. DOTS Plus cum TB-HIV Supervisor
STC-34
2.
Sh. Ram Kumar, age 48 years s/o Sh. Kehar Singh
STS
PC-45
3.
Ms. Jyoti, age 42 years W/o Ratnesh Kumar
STLS
PGIMER
4.
Sh. Vijay Kumar, age 50 s/o Sharif Masih
STLS
PC-45
5.
Ms. Seema Rani, 44 years w/o Sh. Rajinder Verma
STS
CH Manimajra
6.
Ms. Geeta Mishra, 38 years, w/o Sh. Sandeep Pargaien
STLS
CH Manimajra
7.
Ms. Supreet Kaur, 30 years, d/o Sh. Amandeep Singh
D.E.O.
STC-34
8.
Ms. Dalvir Kaur, 42 years, w/o Sh. Balwinder Singh
D.E.O.
STC-34
9.
Sh. Mohinder Singh, 41 years s/o Sh. Kartar Singh
TBHV
CD-38
10.
Sh. John Mathew, 42 years w/o Sh. Rafiq Mathew
Lab Tech.
PGIMER
11.
Ms. Renu Thakur, 36 years w/o Sh. Parveen
Lab. Tech.
CD-DMC
12.
Ms. Pinki Devi, 32 years, d/o Sh. Narinder Singh
Lab. Tech.
GMSH-16
13.
Ms. Kusum, 30 years, w/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar
Lab. Tech.
CD-Mauli Jagran
14.
Sh. Gulshan Kumar, 31 years, s/o Sh. Kundan Lal
TBHV
CD-Dhanas
15.
Ms. Kamalpreet, 50 years d/o Sh. STLS Hanuman Das
STLS
GMCH-32
16.
Ms. Anu, 39 years, Sh. Udham Singh
TBHV
PGIMER
17.
Ms. Teena, 42 years, w/o Sh. Yograj
TBHV
CG-DMC
18.
Ms. Sushma, 38 years, w/o Sh. S.N. Sharma
TBHV
CD-19
19.
Ms. Sonia Chawla, 39 years, W/o Sh. Dharam Chand
TBHV
CD -Mauli Jagran
20.
Ms. Poonam Sharma, 44 years, w/o Sh. Vishal Gautam
TBHV
PC-45
21.
Sh. Bhupinder Singh, 35 years, S/o Late Sh. S. Harbhajan Singh
LT
ESIC Ramdarbar
22.
Sh. Amrinder Singh, 31 years, S/o S. Sital Singh
TBHV
RHTC Palsora
23.
Ms. Sarla Devi, 40 years, w/o Sh. Sushil Kumar
TBHV
GMSH-16
24.
Ms. Kamlesh, 36 years, W/o Sh. Sham Lal
LT
CC-22
25.
Sh. Rajinder Singh, 26 years, s/o S. Bhupinder Singh
TBHV
CD-CITCO
26.
Sh. Vikas Kumar, 40 years, s/o Late Sh. Subhash Karan
TBHV
CH Manimajra
27.
Ms. Tejinder Kaur, 29 years, D/O s. Harbans Singh
LT
CD-26
28.
Ms. Ameesha Sharma, 27 years, d/o Sh. Shashi Bhushan
LT
CH Manimajra
29.
Sh. Rakesh Kumar, 31 years, s/o Sh. Narinder Kumar
LT
UHTC 44
30.
Sh. Krishan Mohan Sharma, 40 years, s/o Sh. Tarsem Lal Sharma
Pharmacist
STC 34
(All applicants are Group C employees and under administrative control of the State T.B. Officer, State T.B. Cell, Govt. Dispensary, Sector 34, Chandigarh)
.Applicants
Argued by: Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Directorate General of Health Services, (Central TB Division), Govt. of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, National Health Mission, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The Director, Health Services, UT Chandigarh, Govt. Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh.
4. The Mission Director, State Health Society, National Health Mission, UT Chandigarh, M.C.H. , Sector 22, Chandigarh.
5. The state T.B. Officer, State T.B. Cell, Govt. Dispensary, Sector 34, Chandigarh.
..Respondents
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER(J):-
1. Applicants Shekhar Sharma s/o Sh. N.R. Sharma and others, who are working on contract basis, under special project of National Rural Health Mission (for brevity NRHM), have preferred the instant Original Application (OA) claiming equal pay at par with pay scale of regular staff of the Government, in view of the judgement of Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors, 2017(1) SCC 148.
2. The crux of the facts and material which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant OA and exposited from the record is that the applicants were engaged on contract/temporary basis under a special project of sub-mission of National Health Mission (NHM) by the respondents. According to the applicants that although they were engaged on contract basis under NRHM Scheme, but instead of creating a regular department, a society has been created under the Societies Regulations Act, 1860 wherein all the recruitments take place and the recruited persons are employed on contract basis including the applicants on a consolidated remuneration.
3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, the applicants claim that they are entitled to the pay at par with the minimum pay scale of regular Government employees, in view of the judgement in Jagjit Singhs case (supra). On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the applicants claim the benefit of pay scale of the regular Government employees in the manner indicated hereinabove.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having one through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter, we are of the firm view that there is no merit and the instant OA deserves to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned hereinbelow.
5. As is evident from the record that the applicants were engaged on contract/temporary basis under a special project of sub-mission of National Health Mission. As per Memo No. 1206 dated 30.12.2016 (Annexure A-7), the Central Government with an eye to eradicate the dangerous diseases and to strengthen health care systems prevalent in State/UTs, formulated a scheme of sub-mission of NRHM based on their requirement. The NRHM is an initiative undertaken by the Government of India to address health needs of underserved rural areas to provide accessible, affordable and quality health care to the rural population. The NRHM was initially approved upto 2012 and it has been extended upto 2017 i.e. co-terminus with the 12th Five Year Plan. To achieve these guidelines, NRHM entered into a partnership between the Central and State Governments and has established a mechanism to carry out necessary reforms in the health sector. The Central Government provides the financial support to States/UTs which is supplementary in nature. It is not a matter of dispute that the applicants were appointed under sub-mission of NRHM. Even as per the case of the applicants (sub-para vi of para 4 of OA), instead of creating a regular department to control the dangerous diseases, a society has been created under the Societies Registration Act wherein all the recruitments take place and the recruited persons are employed on contract basis including the applicants.
6. Meaning thereby, even as per own case of applicants, they were engaged on contract basis on a special project of NHM. Hence, they are neither the employees of the Central Government nor were holding civil posts of State/UT. Therefore, it is held that applicants were not appointed on any civil post, but under a special indicated programme of NHM. Thus, to our mind, they cannot possible be termed to be Government employees holding any civil post. In that eventuality, they are not entitled to equal pay at par with the pay scale of Government employees in view of Jagjit Singh (supra).
7. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, so, the instant OA is hereby dismissed as such with no order as to costs.
(JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR) MEMBER(J) (UDAY