Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

K.Kanagaraj vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2021

Author: S.Srimathy

Bench: S.Srimathy

                                                                      W.P(MD)No.4094 of 2014


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 16.11.2021

                                                       CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

                                           W.P(MD)No.4094 of 2014
                                                    and
                                             M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014
                                                    and
                                          W.M.P(MD)No.19436 of 2018

                     K.Kanagaraj                                            ... Petitioner
                                                         Vs.

                     1.Union of India,
                       Represented by its Secretary,
                       Ministry of Home Affairs,
                       North Block, New Delhi – 1.

                     2.The Director General,
                       ITBP Force, Ministry of Home Affairs,
                       Directorate General, ITBP,
                       Block No.2, C.G.O. Complex,
                       Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

                     3.The Director (Meical),
                       ITBP Force, Ministry of Home Affairs,
                       Directorate General, ITBP,
                       Block No.2, C.G.O. Complex,
                       Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

                     4.The Deputy Inspector General (Org),
                       ITBP Force, Ministry of Home Affairs,
                       Directorate General, ITBP,
                       Block No.2, C.G.O. Complex,
                       Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/11
                                                W.P(MD)No.4094 of 2014



                     5.D.S.Nandish

                     6.Shoorveer Singh

                     7.Nagendra Kumar Singh

                     8.Manohar Lal

                     9.Satya Dev

                     10.Ravinder Kumar

                     11.Jashpal Singh

                     12.Rita Kaur

                     13.Ram Kumar

                     14.Satish Kumar

                     15.Jitender

                     16.Bhupendra Singh Yadav

                     17.Kastuba Nand Pant

                     18.Sushil Kumar Dubey

                     19.Avijit Maji

                     20.Himmat Singh

                     21.Hemant Singh

                     22.Radhey Lal Pal

                     23.Rajkumar

                     24.Vijay Kumar

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     2/11
                                              W.P(MD)No.4094 of 2014



                     25.Kharakram

                     26.B.Rajesh

                     27.Th.Romesh Singh

                     28.Dodisapna Ben

                     29.M.Madhusoodhanam

                     30.Ramakrishnan

                     31.Anoop Bala

                     32.Y.Govind Rao

                     33.S.Devasagayam

                     34.K.Anil

                     35.Uday Kumar

                     36.Balbir Singh

                     37.Mustaq Ahamad

                     38.Ashok Kumar Mishra

                     39.Devanand Prajapati

                     40.K.Manilla Hussain

                     41.Kanchan Singh

                     42.Bhoi Pinal Kumar

                     43.Rajeev Kumar Pandey

                     44.Harender Singh

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     3/11
                                             W.P(MD)No.4094 of 2014



                     45.Bali Thakur

                     46.Rajender Singh

                     47.Arjun Singh

                     48.Pratap Singh

                     49.S.Vijayakumaran

                     50.C.Rajaram

                     51.Sunil Sharma

                     52.Pitamber Joshi

                     53.Rajeev Kumar

                     54.Chandra Bhusan

                     55.Vikarm Singh

                     56.Brijesh Singh

                     57.Narender Singh

                     58.Surender Singh

                     59.Mohd Tanvir Khan

                     60.Manju Karki

                     61.A.Shyam Chandra

                     62.Brij Pal Sharma

                     63.Pramod Kumar Tomar

                     64.Asha Devi

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     4/11
                                                                            W.P(MD)No.4094 of 2014



                     65.Prakash Singh

                     66.Rajendran Nair

                     67.Brij Raj Pal

                     68.Tapak Rime

                     69.Sandeep Chand

                     70.C.Anand

                     71.Parveen Singh Negi

                     72.Palzor Wanchok Kazi

                     73.Devi Singh

                     74.Shakti Lal

                     75.Gajendra Singh

                     76.Ajay Kumar Nayak                                         ... Respondents

                        (R5 to R76 are impleaded vide Court order
                         dated 17.02.2020 in W.M.P(MD)No.2639
                         of 2020 in W.P(MD)No.4094 of 2014)

                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
                     issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the
                     files of the fourth respondent pertaining to its order bearing number
                     1–45024/31/2009 Organisation dated 18.10.2013 and to quash the same
                     and consequently, direct the respondents to extend the benefits of nursing
                     allowance on par with nursing assistants of Assam Rifles.



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     5/11
                                                                                     W.P(MD)No.4094 of 2014


                                        For Petitioner   : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
                                        For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Laxman,
                                                           for R1 to R4.

                                                          ORDER

The petitioner is working as a Commandant of 45th Battalion in Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBPF), Idayapatti Camp, Amoor South, Madurai, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner is appointed as a designated Medic and he is receiving Hospital Patient Care Allowance. The petitioner is comparing himself with the Nursing Assistants of Assam Rifles wherein, they will be paid allowance of Rs.150/- (Rupees One Hundred and Fifty only).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is doing the same duty as that of the Nurses in the ITBP Hospital. He would further submit that, they are assigned to maintain the proper cleanliness in the hospital, viz, Medical Injection Room, sterilisation of all dressing materials, instruments, equipments, etc., under the guidance of senior Nursing Staff. Apart from that, the petitioner was assigned other works like to keep record of daily OPD/Indoor Attendance and consumption of medicine, assist the in-charge of stores or ward and other section of the hospital, prepare patients for operation, laboratory test, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/11 W.P(MD)No.4094 of 2014 radiography and other investigations, assisting in feeding and giving drinking water, handling and observation of patients, dressing of wounds and other nursing procedure, assisting in diagnostic and treatment procedure, collecting and handling of pathological specimens and other duties as specified therein. It is the specific claim of the petitioner that these are the duties that are assigned to the Nurses also.

3. The respondents have filed a detailed counter. In paragraph 3(a) of the counter, it is specifically stated that the Medics and Nurses are not performing the same duties and the charter of duties for Nurses and Medics as specified in ITBP Manual are entirely different and as per their specified duties, Nurses and Medics are in different posts and grades and different cadres.

4. The specific claim of R1 to R4, in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, is that these Medics would be paid Special Hospital Patient Care Allowance and the petitioner is already receiving the same.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/11 W.P(MD)No.4094 of 2014

6. The petitioner is seeking the Nursing Allowance that is being granted to the Assam Rifles. The petitioner has relied on a judgment passed in the High Court of Gauhati, in W.P(C)No.(SH)279 of 2009, and has relied on paragraph 16 of the judgment. The issue in that Judgment is that the Nursing Assistants are given a Special Allowance, therefore, the similarly placed Assistant Matron, Sister Staff Nurse and AMN are seeking the same allowance as that of the Nursing Staff. The High Court of Gauhati has stated that the respondent authorities have made an unreasonable classification to deprive them from the benefit, which they are legally entitled to. In the present case the petitioner is comparing “Medic” and “Nurses”. Since those two are different posts and the name cannot be compared at all. Therefore the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case.

7. The claim of the petitioner comparing himself with the Assam Rifles cannot be accepted for the reason, the Assam and the North-East part of India have different topography, where travelling would be very difficult. As per the ITBP category itself, service rendered in North-East is “hard service”. So, there is no unreasonable classification. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/11 W.P(MD)No.4094 of 2014

8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for R1 to R4, the petitioner is receiving another type of allowance, namely, Hospital Patient Care Allowance, which the Assam Rifles are not getting. These kind of allowances are within the domain of the Appointing Authorities. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, these issues cannot be litigated. Therefore, this writ petition fails. However, if R1 to R4 considers it to be fit to grant such allowance, the respondents may consider the same in accordance with law and this Court is not directing the respondents to consider it positively.

9. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

16.11.2021 gbg/btr Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/11 W.P(MD)No.4094 of 2014 To

1.Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi – 1.

2.The Director General, ITBP Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate General, ITBP, Block No.2, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

3.The Director (Meical), ITBP Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate General, ITBP, Block No.2, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

4.The Deputy Inspector General (Org), ITBP Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate General, ITBP, Block No.2, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/11 W.P(MD)No.4094 of 2014 S.SRIMATHY, J.

gbg/btr Order made in:

W.P(MD)No.4094 of 2014

and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 and W.M.P(MD)No.19436 of 2018 Dated:
16.11.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/11