Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gopal Singh Sandhu And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 November, 2013
CWP No.2105 of 1995 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.2105 of 1995
Date of decision: November 28, 2013
Gopal Singh Sandhu and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON
Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Shri Yatinder Sharma, Additional A.G. Punjab.
****
DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON, J.
Working as Radiographers in different hospitals, the petitioners seek issuance of writ of mandamus against the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.1,410- 2,460 on revision of pay scale of Rs.510-940 (selection grade) upto 50 % of the posts, instead of 40 number of posts fixed for the purpose of revised pay scale in the Selection Grade in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab. Parity with other posts like Lady Health Visitors, Pharmacists etc. has been drawn. In addition, transfer orders of the Radiographers vide order dated 08.12.1994 (Annexure P-6) are sought to be quashed on the ground that such transfers had been made in mid-session.
Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.05 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.2105 of 1995 -2-Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length while perusing the paper book.
In short, there are two aspects of this petition; these are as under:-
1. Whether the government may be compelled to revise pay scales in selection grade for a particular number of posts merely because in some other category of posts, it had allowed so?;
and,
3. Whether the government may be interdicted not to transfer certain category of Technicians in the Hospitals by quashing their transfer orders?
The administration is run by the government. They know about it better. How many posts in which category of employees are required to man their hospitals well, depends upon their policy and planning. If government needs more Lady Health Visitors, Pharmacists etc., it is not necessary that concomitantly, it would also require equal number of posts in other category of employees.
Needless to state that number of posts in a particular category of employees is determined by the government keeping in view various factors. Merely because some category of posts fortuitously finds expansion, other category of posts in absence of need, may not get the same quantum of expansion. Need based expansion of some category of posts would not provide ground for parity to be drawn by incumbents of other category of posts, where such need is non-existent. Wishful orientation of expansion of Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.05 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.2105 of 1995 -3- posts cannot be allowed to get the treatment at par with such other category of posts which have experienced need based expansion.
Vide notification of 21.08.1990 (Annexure P-4), the respondents had made certain amendments in their earlier notification of 20.01.1989 wherein giving effect to revision of pay scales, number of posts were also specified for grant of higher scale in selection grade. To demonstrate, in the category of posts of Staff Nurses, scale of pay of Rs.510-940 was revised to Rs.1,500-2,640. Hitherto higher scale of pay of Rs.680-1120 was available as selection grade only to 20% of total posts.
To demonstrate further, in the category of Auxiliary Nurse Midwives, scale of pay of Rs.400-660 was revised to Rs.950-1,800 (with start of Rs.1,000). Designation of Auxiliary Nurse Midwives was changed to Multipurpose Workers (Female). Selection grade of Rs.510-940 was revised to Rs.1,350-2,400 but with a cap that the selection grade would be available only to 50% of the posts.
In case of Radiographers as are the petitioners, scale of pay of Rs.450-800 has been revised to Rs.1,200-2,100. So far as scale of selection grade is concerned, from Rs.510-940, it has been revised to Rs.1,460-2,460. It has been stipulated that only 40% posts in the cadre of Radiographers would be upgraded to that of Senior Radiographers who would then get scale of pay of Rs.1,600 to Rs.2,460. Merely because in one category selection grade has been provided for 50% of the total posts in such cadre, whereas in the other category, instead of a Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.05 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.2105 of 1995 -4- particular percentage, the cap has been put with regard to particular number of posts, without making any reference to percentage of total posts. There is in fact no discrimination.
Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show as to how there is any element of discrimination or illegality or violation of principles of natural justice particularly when qualifications, experience, mode of recruitment, skills involved and details of work profile etc. of the post of Radiographers is entirely different than that of the posts with which non-existent parity has been claimed by the petitioners.
It is noteworthy that even earlier, selection grade in the category of Radiographers was not available for 50% of the posts but it was available only for 30% of the posts. Vide Annexure P-5 of 06.01.1995, the respondents had made it clear that posts of Senior Radiographers in the selection grade were to be available on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
Thus, alleying the apprehensions of the petitioners of pick and choose method for manning the said posts, this notification Annexure P-4 and letter Annexure P-5 were duly implemented by the respondents on 08.12.1994 vide order (Annexure P-6) when Radiographers on the basis of seniority-cum-merit were promoted as Senior Radiographers. During the course of arguments, it has also been explained by the learned counsel for the respondents that post of Senior Radiographer has been made available only for such hospitals where indoor bed strength is 50 to 200 beds.
Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.05 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.2105 of 1995 -5-Looking from another angle notification (Annexure P-4) is of 21.08.1990; this petition had been preferred on 08.02.1995. We are now in 2013. Long time has passed by. Notification (Annexure P-4), however, has stood test of the times.
Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, no case of discrimination, particularly when categories of employees and their job profiles are entirely different than that of the present petitioners, is made out. First question, thus, is answered against the petitioners.
So far as second question is concerned, on implementation of revised pay scales in terms of notification (Annexure P-4), promotions from the posts of Radiographers to those of Senior Radiographers in the higher pay-scale of Rs.1,400-2,460 instead of Rs.1,200- 2,100 were made vide impugned orders. On the one hand, the petitioners claimed that selection grade had been provided for less number of posts i.e.for 40 posts instead of 50% of the cadre strength whereas, on the other hand, they have objected to promotion to the post of Senior Radiographers in the revised pay scale and consequent transfers.
On 09.02.1995 at the time of issuance of notice, it was made clear by this Court as follows:-
"If the petitioners do not carry out the order of transfer, it shall be open for the respondents to initiate disciplinary action against them."
It is conceded now that the impugned Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.05 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.2105 of 1995 -6- order of transfer (Annexure P-6) has already been implemented and thus prayer for quashing of the same has become redundant.
As a consequence, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON) JUDGE November 28, 2013.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.05 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document