Dr. Ratan Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 26 November, 2024

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Dr. Ratan Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 26 November, 2024

Bench: Deepak Roshan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P. (S) No. 1737 of 2021
                                 ---------

Dr. Ratan Kumar Dubey, aged about 59 years, son of Late Digambar Prasad Dubey, resident of 201 Charushrsti Apartment, Dutta Villa Compound, New Area, Morabadi, P.O. Morabadi, P.S. Bariyatu, District Ranchi-834008.

.....Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative Department, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi;

2. The Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Planning-cum-

Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

....Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 1937 of 2021

---------

1. Dr. Mritunjay Kumar, aged about 56 years, son of Late Sant Lal Rama, resident of Village Dighi Siwanpur, P.O. Dighi Siwanpur, P.S. Meharma, District Godda 814151, Jharkhand;

2. Dr. Lal Bihari Prasad, aged about 54 years, son of Late Singason Bhagat, resident of Qr. No. DT/1469, Dhurwa Bus Stand, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand;

3. Dr. Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sinha, aged about 55 years, son of Late Banke Bihari Prasad, resident of Flat No. 304, Phase-l, Akansha Apartment, P.O. Kanta Toli, P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi- 834001, Jharkhand;

4. Dr. Sriniwas Mehta, aged about 55 years, son of Ram Padarath Mehta, resident of Konarbera, P.O. Petarbar, P.S. Petarbar, District Bokar-829121, Jharkhand;

5. Dr. Abhimanyu Prasad, aged about 54 years, son of Late Saryu Mahto, resident of Nidhi Enclave, Flat No. 202, Ashok Vihar Extension, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand;

6. Dr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, aged about 52 years, son of Ramjanam Singh, resident of Flat No.402-A, Block-A, Vasudeo Nagar, P.O. Kanta Toli, P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi- 834001, Jharkhand;

7. Dr. Jamaluddin, aged about 55 years, son of Late Md. Abdul Shakoor, resident of Azim Colony, Lakhey, P.O. Korra, P.S. Muffasil Hazaribag, District Hazaribag - 825303;

8. Dr. Brajesh Kumar, aged about 53 years, son of Late Jagdish Prasad Saha, resident of Village Sarai, P.O. Naya Bazar, P.S. Tatarpur, District Bhagalpur - 8122002, Bihar;

9. Dr. Harihar Prasad, aged about 55 years, son of Late Ram Sagar Sah, resident of Village Sahubasa, P.O. Sarkanda, P.S. Ishipur, Barahat, District Bhagalpur- 813209, Bihar;

10. Dr. Binay Kumar Roy, aged about 54 years, son of N.K. Roy, resident of House No. 505-D, Ashok Nagar, beside Electric Sub- Station, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi, 834002, Jharkhand;

11. Dr. Sanjay Prasad, aged about 52 years, son of Rajendra Prasad, resident of Jagannath Vihar, P.O. New Pundag, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi 834004, Jharkhand;

12. Dr. Shailendra Prasad, aged about 54 years, son of Late Ram Kishan Mahto, resident of Rajeev Path, Dimna Road, P.O. Mango, P.S. Ulidih, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

- 831012, Jharkhand;

13. Dr. Shailendra Kumar Thakur, aged about 58 years, son of Late Satya Deo Thakur, resident of Flat No. B4, Vikas Vatika, Shivaji Nagar, near Choudhary Service Station, P.O. Booti, P.S. Khelgaon, Dumardanga, District Ranchi - 835217, Jharkhand;

14. Dr. Md. Latiful Kabir, aged about 53 years, son of Abdul Rauf, resident of At. & P.O. Jonka, Tinpahar, P.S. Rajmahal, District Sahibganj-816116, Jharkhand;

15. Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh, aged about 53 years, son of Sudin Prasad Singh, resident of Village & P.O. Bari Kudar Janna, P.S. Muffasil, District Sahubganj-816109, Jharkhand;

16. Dr. Manoj Kumar Mani, aged about 53 years, son of Late Dina Nath Mandal, resident of Village Hajipur (Rajgaon), P.Ο. Mirzachouki, P.S. Muffasil Sahibganj, District Sahibganj- 813208. Jharkhand;

17. Dr. Veera Sanjukta Nancy Khalkho, aged about 58 years, son of Late Sushil Keneth Khalkho, resident of Village Shankarpur, Nehru Chowk, P.O. Shankarpur, P.S. Parshudih, Area Jamshedpur Tatanagar, District East Singhbhum 831002, Jharkhand;

18. Dr. Niraj Kumar Gupta, aged about 54 years, son of Late Dayanand Lal Gupta, resident of Mission Chowk, Lohardaga, P.O. & P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga - 835302, Jharkhand;

19. Dr. Asim Kumar Singh, aged about 52 years, son of Jai Ram Prasad Singh, resident of Village Gotia, P.O. Astawan, P.S. Nalanda, District Nalanda 803107, Bihar;

20. Dr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, aged about 56 years, son of Late Baldeo Prasad Singh, resident of Village Barolia, P.O. Bhudhu Chak, P.S. Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur - 813204, Bihar;

21. Dr. Dayanand Prasad, aged about 59 years, son of Late Lal Prasad, resident of Sai Vihar Colony, Road No.-2, House No. G- 04, New Madhukam, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi-834005, Jharkhand;

22. Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, aged about 59 years, son of Late Jagatnarayan Singh, resident of Sai Apartment, Flat No. 2A, Road No.09, Vikash Nagar, Singh More, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi - 834003, Jharkhand;

23. Dr. Rama Shankar Prasad, aged about 59 years, son of Balgovind Prasad, resident of Shivala Road, Ward No.30, P.O. Daltonganj, P.S. Sadar Daltonganj, District Palamu - 822101, Jharkhand;

24. Dr. Dhananjay Prasad Singh, aged about 59 years, son of Late Ashok Kumar Singh, resident of Chandil Station Basti Rootara, P.O. & P.S. Chandil, District Seraikela-Kharsawan-832401 Jharkhand;

25. Dr. Anil Kumar Singh, aged about 58 years, son of Late Bishwanath Singh, resident of Village & P.O. Methwalia, P.S. Ribilganj, District Chhapra -841213, Bihar;

26. Dr. Radhe Shyam Kunwar, aged about 59 years, son of Late Lakhan Lal Kunwar, resident of Village Bhawnathpur, P.O. Rannuchak Makandpur, P.S. Akhar Nagar, District Bhagalpur- 812004, Bihar;

27. Dr. Uma Shankar Prasad, aged about 59 years, son of Late Sadhu Sharan Prasad, resident of Ashok Nagar, Road No. 10, Kankarbagh Colony, P.O. & P.S. Kankarbagh, District Patna 800020, Bihar.

.....Petitioners Versus

2. The Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Planning-cum-

Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi;

3. The Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

....Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 2005 of 2021

---------

Dr. Lakhi Ram Gonjhu, aged about 59 years, son of Late Hari Nath Gonjhu, resident of Village Hotwar, near Khelgaon Hotwar (Gari Hotwar), P.O. Hotwar, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi. Presently working as Chief Instructor, Animal Husbandry School, Gauriakarma, Hazaribag.

.....Petitioner Versus

2. The Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Planning-cum-

Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

....Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 298 of 2022

---------

Sushil Kumar, aged about 59 years, son of Mahendra Kumar, resident of 5-U, Ganpati Niwas, near Natraj Pole Factory, Kunda, P.O. and P.S. Kunda, District Deoghar, Jharkhand .....Petitioner Versus

2. The Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Planning-cum-

Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi;

3. The Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

....Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 774 of 2022

---------

Subodh Ranjan Verma, aged about 62 years, son of Shri Rajendra Prasad Verma, resident of Harmony Apartment, Dipti Para, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.

.....Petitioner Versus

2. The Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Planning-cum-

Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

....Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Adv.

For the Resp.-State : Ms. Divya, A.C. to S.C.-III [in W.P.(S) No.1737 of 2021] Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to S.C.-IV Mr. Vineet Prakash, A.C. to S.C.-IV [in W.P. (S) No. 1937 of 2022] Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-III [in W.P. (S) No. 298 of 2021]

---------

C.A.V. ON: 12.09.2024 PRONOUNCED ON:-26/11/2024 Since all these writ applications involve common issue; as such, all were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In all these writ applications, the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners (Veterinary Officer/Doctor) and enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years, as is prevalent in their Parent Department (Animal Husbandry Cadre) to 65 years of services, as is decided, in the resolution dated 23.07.2011 (corrigendum dated 23.06.2012), for 'Doctors' in the Department of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand.

Petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners, Veterinary Officer (Doctor), at par with the General Duty Medical Officers (Allopathic Doctors), in view of the recommendations of Central Services Conditions (5th & 6th C.P.C.); wherein the Veterinary Officers (Doctors) and General Duty Medical Officers (Allopathic Doctors) have been decided to be treated in complete parity in all respects, therefore, declare as such; and also in view of the fact that it has already been decided by the State Government, vide its circular dated 02.01.1998 (Annexure-4), by erstwhile State of Bihar adopting the recommendation of 5th CPC) and resolution dated 28.02.2009 (Annexure-6) by the State of Jharkhand adopting the recommendation of 6th CPC) to adopt the Central Service Conditions in totality for the corresponding posts in the State Cadre.

3. The brief facts of these cases are that the petitioners in all the above five cases belong to the same Department and are of the same service cadre, i.e. Veterinary Officers, in the Animal Husbandry Wing of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative Department in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioners have approached the Court with a common prayer to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years and further, prayer has been made in some of the writ petitions for grant of benefits of Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter to be referred as "DACP Scheme").

4. Since the cases of all these petitioners are same and arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances, praying for same relief and bear same pleadings, learned counsel for the petitioners has advanced a combined argument for all these cases which are as follows:

I) In W.P.(S) No.1737 of 2021, initially, prayer was sought for enhancement of age of retirement from 60 to 65 years, drawing parlance from the recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission and 6th Central Pay Commission, which is duly adopted by the State of Jharkhand, through its resolution, dated 28.02.2009. Further, an Interlocutory Application was filed, being I.A. No.40 of 2023, wherein a challenge was thrown to the rejection order, dated 18.10.2022; whereby claim of enhancement of retirement age, made by the petitioner was rejected by the respondents during the pendency of the writ application. The prayer made in the I.A. for allowing to challenge the order dated 18.10.2022, was allowed, and amendment was carried out in the memo of the writ petition, in pursuance to order dated 25.04.2024.

The brief facts, peculiar to the petitioner of the instant case is that he was appointed in the Bihar Animal Husbandry Services, and gave his joining on 06.05.1986. Thereafter, the petitioner reached his age of superannuation on 31.07.2021, on attaining 60 years of age. The petitioner had moved representation before the respondents on 22.03.2021, seeking for enhancement of age of retirement from 60 to 65 years. This, however, was rejected by the respondents by passing an order dated 18.10.2022.

II) In W.P.(S) No.1937 of 2021, the petitioners have moved before this court with a prayer for enhancement of age of retirement from 60 to 65 years. Further, prayer has been made to grant the benefits of DACP Scheme, following parity with General Duty Medical Officers (Allopathic Doctors), as proposed in the 5th and 6th CPC, that has been duly adopted by the Govt. of Jharkhand, vide its resolution dated 28.02.2009.

The particulars of the petitioners in the present case are that they were appointed as Veterinary Officers, and were given different posting as Touring Veterinary Officer, Block Animal Husbandry Officer, District Animal Husbandry Officer and Veterinary Surgeon, etc. These petitioners are 27 in numbers and were appointed on different dates in the year 1982, 1986, 1989, 1994 & 1995, respectively. In this case, some of the petitioners have retired, while some are still continuing in service. They have made representation before the respondent authorities for enhancement of age of retirement from 60 to 65 years and for grant of benefits of DACP Scheme. The respondents, however, have not passed any order, rejecting the claim of the petitioners.

III) In W.P.(S) No.2005 of 2021, the petitioner has prayed for enhancement of age of retirement from 60 to 65 years, and has claimed parity with General Duty Medical Officers (Allopathic Doctors), in view of the 6 proposals made in the 5th and 6th CPC, duly adopted by the Govt. of Jharkhand, vide its resolution dated 28.02.2009.

The petitioner in this case was appointed as Veterinary Officer, and got his posting as Touring Veterinary Officer. He retired from services on 30.06.2021 and moved representation before the respondents, praying for enhancement of age of retirement from 60 to 65 years. The respondents have not passed any orders IV) In W.P.(S) No.298 of 2022, the petitioner has approached this court with a prayer to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years, and further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 01.07.2021; whereby the State Government has decided to deny such relief to the employees of the cadre of Veterinary Officers in the Animal Husbandry Department. The order dated 01.07.2021, has been passed in the case of one Dr. Baleshwar Choudhary, in pursuance to the directions of this Court, passed in W.P.(S) No. 5426 of 2018. The order has been challenged with a view and understanding that the same analogy would cover the fate of all similar employees of the cadre, including the petitioner, as the claim of enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 65 years has been rejected, for one such employee. The prayer has also been made to grant the benefits of DACP Scheme, claiming parity with General Duty Medical Officers (Allopathic Doctors) on the proposals as made in the 5th and 6th CPC, that has been duly adopted by the State Government through its resolution dated 28.02.2009.

The petitioner in the present writ application was appointed as Veterinary Officer on 26.10.1989 and he would attend 65 years of service on 31.01.2027, therefore, he is still continuing in service.

V) In W.P.(S) No.774 of 2022, the petitioner has come before this court, in his second round of litigation. In the first round i.e. W.P.(S) No.1545 of 2018 was preferred, in which judgment was passed on 29.10.2018, observing that the services of the Veterinary Officers are comparable with the Allopathic Doctors, and therefore, they should be given same treatment in the matter of age of retirement and hence direction was passed to consider the case. In pursuance to that the respondents passed an order on 01.07.2021, rejecting the case of retirement age enhancement. This rejection order has been put to challenge in the present round of litigation, and further relief has been sought for enhancement of age of retirement from 60 to 65 years. Further, it has been said that the benefits of DACP Scheme should be granted to the petitioner (Veterinary Officer) in parity with the General Duty Medical Officers 7 (Allopathic Doctors), as has been proposed and mandated in 5th and 6th CPC, duly adopted by the Government of Jharkhand, vide its resolution dated 28.02.2009. The petitioner was appointed as Veterinary Officer on 15.03.1986, with the Department and has reached his age of superannuation on 31.03.2020.

5. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners submits that the impugned orders, perusal of which is appearing in the record of I.A. No. 40 of 2023 in W.P.(S) No. 1737 of 2021 at Annexure-IA/1, discloses that the respondent authorities have considered and came to a finding that in their service, the Veterinary Officers are different and suffer altogether a separate cadre structure, compared to that of Allopathic / Dental Doctors.

It has also been categorically observed on the point of recommendations of 5th and 6th CPC; to adopt it or not, is a matter of policy decision.

6. Learned Counsel contended that it is a factual error to say that the appointment process, nature of service and educational qualification of Veterinary Officer is not equivalent to that of Medical Doctors of Allopathic and Dentist stream. In W.P.(S) No. 774 of 2022, the order of rejection of the claim that has been put to challenge, is order dated 01.07.2021. In this order as well, the same grounds have been taken, including the grounds that the nature of service, manner of employment, cadre structure, educational qualification, etc. of Veterinary Officers is quite different from that of Medical Officers of Allopathic and Dental. On the above grounds, the claim of enhancement of retirement age was rejected.

The counter affidavits have been filed in W.P.(S) No. 1737 of 2021, W.P.(S) No. 2005 of 2021, W.P.(S) No. 298 of 2022 and W.P.(S) No. 774 of 2022, and common grounds have been taken in all the counter affidavit. It has been stated that there is no provision to extend the retirement age of Veterinary Doctors, as per the policy decision of the State Govt. The nature of work of the cadre of Veterinary Doctors and Medical Officers is different. Further, the decision of limiting the retirement age to 60 years has been taken in the light of availability of trained manpower, with respect to the population and also; the Recruitment Rules of 2013, prescribe the retirement age to be 60 years.

He further contended that the argument is not to decide whether the Veterinary Officers are equivalent to that of Allopathic Doctors / Dental 8 Doctors; rather it has already been declared by the 5th and 6th CPC that the two streams of doctors are equivalent. This is also supported by the findings of the 6th State Fitment Commission, drawing parlance on the findings of the 6th CPC.

7. It has been further submitted that the Central Pay Commission is an expert fact-finding body, which makes recommendations on the basis of the critical analysis of the relevant facts and circumstances. He further relies on the Govt. of Jharkhand resolution dated 28.02.2009, which is in relation to the revision of pay of the State Govt. employees.

He adds that the above resolution has been passed by the order of his Excellency, the Governor of Jharkhand, bearing the name of Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, as its Signatory. This clearly is an exercise of power by the His Excellency the Governor, as bestowed on him under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. On reading of the above provisions of the Constitution of India, being Article 166, it is clear that the decision of a State is taken in the name of the Governor, and for conduct of the business of the Government of State, rules of executive business under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution of India is framed.

He contended that in the present case, the resolution dated 28.02.2009, qualify all the conditions of a decision being passed by the Government of a State, in the manner as provided under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there can be no hesitation in holding the position that the resolution dated 28.02.2009 is a decision of the State Government and therefore would qualify to be called as a policy decision of the State. It is, therefore, clear that the policy decision, in respect of the fact that the recommendation of 6th CPC has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand has already been taken and notified, vide Govt. resolution dated 28.02.2009.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that nature of work for both cadre of doctors i.e., Veterinary Doctors and the General Duty Medical Officer (Allopathic Doctors) are different. So far as the case of medical officers (Allopathic Doctors) and acceptance of recommendation of Central Government's fifth & sixth pay revision is concerned; the issue of enhancement of age limit of superannuation is a policy matter and the 9 Government of Jharkhand has taken a decision in the light of availability of trained manpower with respect to the population; whereas in case of the veterinary doctors, this is not desirable.

He further submits that the Jharkhand Veterinary Service (Recruitment, Promotion and other Service Condition) Rules, 2013 has been framed in the year 2013, in accordance with the resolution No. 5826 dated 26.10.2004 of Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms Rajbhasa, and as per the recruitment of this department, the age of superannuation of Veterinary Doctors has been fixed at 60 years. He lastly submits that there are no instructions from Central Government for enhancement of age of superannuation of Veterinary Doctors in Jharkhand.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the respective affidavits it appears that all the petitioners were appointed as Veterinary Officers on different dates wherein some of them have retired and some are continuing in service; made representation before the respondent authorities for enhancement of age of retirement from 60 to 65 years and for grant of benefits of DACP Scheme. In some cases, the respondents have passed the rejection order i.e. in W.P.(S) No. 1737 of 2021 vide order dated 18.10.2022 and in W.P.(S) No. 774 of 2022 vide order dated 01.07.2021, while in other cases; no orders have been passed till date.

10. From bare perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that respondent authorities have considered and come to a finding that in their service, the Veterinary Officers are different and suffer altogether a separate cadre structure, compared to that of Allopathic / Dental Doctors. It has been recorded that there is difference in the availability of sanctioned strength of the cadre and there is also difference in the available strength of working employees. It has also been recorded that if the retirement age is enhanced, in the case of Veterinary Doctors, then the veterinarians, who pass out of different colleges, will suffer prospect of non-employment.

On the point of recommendations of 5th and 6th CPC, it has also been observed that to adopt it or not is a matter of policy 10 decision. The State Government is within its power to take such decision, on the basis of the availability of manpower and resources, the necessity of work force, etc. The Jharkhand Veterinary Services (Recruitment, Promotion and Other Service Conditions) Regulations- 2013, has established that the retirement age of all the employees in the Department shall be 60 years, as per the Govt. decision contained in circular bearing memo no. 5826, dated 26.10.2004.

It has further been recorded that the enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 65 years will bear additional cost on the government exchequer, which would be much higher, as compared to that of the financial burden to be borne out of the appointment at fresh recruitment level.

In view of the above, it has been recorded that it is a factual error to say that the appointment process, nature of service and educational qualification of Veterinary Officer is equivalent to that of Medical Doctors of Allopathic and Dentist stream.

11. It appears that in taking all the above objections, the respondents have not addressed the most important issue that the claim of the petitioners is based majorly on the policy decision that has already been taken. It is true that the Court cannot interfere into the policy decision, framed by the State, exception being the test of arbitrariness. But, in the present case, the situation does not come to that. In the present case, there is already a policy decision, based on the report of a fact-finding expert body, of which, it seems, that the petitioners are trying to take benefits of.

It has already been declared by the 5th and 6th CPC that the two streams of doctors are equivalent. This is also supported by the findings of the 6th State Fitment Commission, drawing parlance on the findings of the 6th CPC. It is necessary to produce the relevant paragraphs of the 5th and 6th CPC, which form part of the record of the writ petitions:

(i) The report of the 5th Central Pay Commission, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, January,1997-

Para 55.291 - On the question of upgrading the Veterinary Officers uniformly and bringing them at par with medical doctors, we observe that a degree in Veterinary Science is comparable to an MBBS degree and holders of those agrees in both cases are registered and authorized to practice medicine, authenticate health certificates and give evidence as experts under the Indian Evidence Act. We also feel that there is no apparent reason to keep one of the two categories in a lower status. We, therefore, recommend that posts requiring a decree of B.V.Sc. & AH with registration in the Veterinary Council of India as the minimum essential qualification may be placed in a common entry grade corresponding to the existing entry scale application to General Duty Medical Officers and Dental Doctors under the Government of India. Veterinarians should have complete parity with Dental and General Duty Medical Officers, as given in Annexe 55.9, in terms of pay scales and career prospects. In the matter of NPA, there is a small difference in the slabs over which a rate is applicable, resulting in Veterinary Officers getting lower NPA at some stages of the basic pay. In view of the suggested parity, educational and practice requirements, and the need to be available even outside duty hours for domestic and farm animal health care. We recommend that Veterinary Officers should also be paid a non-practicing allowance at the rate of 25% of their basic pay as has been recommended for medical doctors.

(ii) The report of the 6th Central Pay Commission, Govt. of India, March-2008- Para 3.8.25 - The fifth CPC had extended parity with General Duty Medical Officers and Dental Doctors to the posts of Veterinary Officers, requiring a degree of B.V.Sc. & AH along with registration in the Veterinary Council of India. This parity is justified and may need to be continued. Insofar as the posts of para veterinary staff are concerned, all the Group 'D' posts of para Veterinary Attendants shall be placed in the revised pay band PB-1 along with the grade pay of Rs. 1800 after they are retrained suitably. The posts of Para Veterinary Attendant / Compounder shall be extended the corresponding replacement pay band and grade pay. All the three grades in the category of Animal House Supervisor / Assistant Veterinarians / Biological Assistants / Zoological Assistants shall now be placed in the PB-2 pay band of Rs. 8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4200. Posts of Para Veterinary Staff in the erstwhile scales of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 will stand merged. The posts of Para Veterinary Staff in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 6500-10500 shall be upgraded and placed in the higher Pay Band PB-2 of Rs. 8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4600 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 7450-11500. These posts shall, therefore, stand merged with posts already existing in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 7450-11500, if any.

These recommendations are made by the Central Pay Commission and are subject to approval by the competent authority. In the present case, these recommendations have been adopted by the State Government.

12. The question now is therefore, if the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission have already been adopted in principle; then can it be said that a policy decision in this relation is still require to be taken. In this relation, it would be profitable to peruse the Govt. of Jharkhand resolution dated 28.02.2009, which is in relation to the revision of pay of the State Govt. employees. The relevant opening lines of the first paragraph is being reproduced herein below:-

"The Government of India has granted revised pay scale / new pay structure on the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006. The State Government is agreed to principle to grant Central Pay Scale and other allowance with Central Service conditions to its employees"

(Emphasis to be supplied)

13. The above resolution has been passed by the order of His Excellency, the Governor of Jharkhand, bearing the name of Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, as its Signatory. This clearly is an exercise of power by the His Excellency the Governor, as bestowed on him under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, wherein at sub-clause (1) it has been provided that all the executive action of the Govt. of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor.

Further, on combined reading of sub-clause 2 and 3 of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, it is clear that there will be a rule framed by the Governor, for convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this constitution requires to act in his discretion.

From bare perusal of the above provisions of the Constitution of India, being Article 166, it is clear that the decision of a State is taken in the name of the Governor, and for conduct of the business of the Government of State, rules of executive business under Article 13 166 (3) of the Constitution of India is framed.

14. In the present case, the resolution dated 28.02.2009, qualifies all the conditions of a decision being passed by the Government of a State, in the manner as provided under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there can be no hesitation in holding the position that the resolution dated 28.02.2009 is a decision of the State Government and therefore would qualify to be called as a policy decision of the State.

Accordingly, it is clear that the policy decision, in respect of the fact that the recommendation of 6th CPC has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand has already been taken and notified, vide Govt. resolution dated 28.02.2009.

15. Hence, the stipulation made in the impugned order dated 18.10.2022, {annexed in I.A. No. 40 of 2023 of W.P.(S) No. 1737 of 2021}, that the recommendation of the 6th CPC is subject matter of approval by the Govt. and therefore falls in the realm of policy decision, is only a half statement. On analysing the position as it appears from the reading of the resolution dated 28.02.2009, it is clear that the recommendation of 6th CPC has already been adopted by the State Government in principle. What remains rest is its implementation by making appropriate provisions to give a full picture to the rights arising from the commitment made by the State Government by adoption of 6th CPC, so that the finality of service condition arising therefrom can be appropriately regulated.

16. In view of the above discussions, the Government of Jharkhand is directed to come-up with appropriate provisions and rules, through its respective Departments, particularly Department of Animal Husbandry and Departmental Finance, to grant the benefits of DACP and enhancement of retirement age of the Veterinary Officers to 65 years, in parlance with the recommendation of the 6th CPC that 14 the two services, i.e. Allopathic Doctors and Veterinary Officer are to be treated at par, in the matter of service conditions and pay structure.

17. It goes without saying that the impugned orders which has been passed in W.P.(S) No. 1737 of 2021 vide order dated 18.10.2022 and in W.P.(S) No. 774 of 2022 vide order dated 01.07.2021, are hereby, quashed and set aside. It is expected that the Government of Jharkhand will do the needful and come-up with appropriate provisions and rules, through its respective Departments at the earliest; preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

18. With the above observations/directions, all these writ applications stand disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, is also closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated:- 26/11/2024 Amardeep/-

NAFR 15

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court