Gujarat High Court
Dhanlaxmiben Liladhar Suchak vs Director Of Ayurved, Gujarat State And ... on 8 April, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)2GLR1082
JUDGMENT A.N. Divecha, J.
1. The typical bureaucratic stand adopted by and on behalf of the respondents has driven the unfortunate petitioner in this case to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances against non-grant of benefits to her flowing from the judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3238 of 1979 decided on 2nd February, 1982 (Per B.K. Mehta, J.) setting aside the Government Resolution of 11th January, 1978 at Annexure 'E' to this petition.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner entered the Government Service some time in 1963 as a trained and qualified auxiliary nurse and midwife. By one order passed by respondent No. 1 on 16th June, 1970, she was transferred to the Ayurvedic Hospital at Rajkot as a staff nurse. Its copy is at Annexure 'A' to this petition. Apropos, she resumed her duties in the Ayurvedic Hospital at Rajkot. She served there till her retirement on superannuation with effect from 31st May, 1984. A copy of the order of her retirement is at Annexure 'C' to this petition. It appears that formerly the pay scales for the post of auxiliary nurse and midwife and that of staff nurse were equal. Later on the pay scales were revised and the staff nurses were given the higher pay scale. Though the petitioner was working as a staff nurse, she was paid the lower pay scale for the post of auxiliary nurse. It appears that some representations were made to the Government for payment of the pay scale for the post of staff nurse to auxiliary nurses and midwives Working as staff nurses in various Government Ayurvedic Hospitals. The State Government however appears not to have found favour with such representations. It through one. Resolution of 11th January, 1978 decided not to give the higher pay scale of 380-560 to auxiliary nurses and midwives working as staff nurses in various Government Ayurvedic Hospitals. Under the aforesaid Government Resolution, it was decided to give to them the revised pay scale of Rs. 260-400 in accordance with the Gujarat Civil Services Pay Rules, 1975. A copy of this resolution is at Annexure 'E' to this petition. It appears that some auxiliary nurses and midwives working as staff nurses in certain Government Ayurvedic Hospitals affected by the Government Resolution at Annexure 'E' to this petition challenged its legality and validity in this Court by means of one petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It came to be registered as Special Civil Application No. 3238 of 1979.
3. By its judgment passed on 2nd February, 1982 in Special Civil Application No. 3238 of 1979 (Per B.K. Mehta, J.), this Court was pleased to accept the petition and to set aside the Government Resolution challenged therein which is at Annexure 'E' to this petition. A copy of the judgment of this Court in that writ petition is at Annexure 'F' to this petition. Some left out petitioners affected by the aforesaid Government Resolution also challenged it by means of Special Civil Application No. 803 of 1986. That petition also came to be accepted by the judgment passed on 20th June, 1989 (Per R.C. Mankad, J.) following the earlier ruling of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3238 of 1979 decided on 2nd February, 1982 (Per B.K. Mehta, J.). The respondents in that petition who are also the respondents in this petition were directed to give the benefits of the pay scale of Rs. 380-560 to auxiliary nurses and midwives working as staff nurses in various Government Ayurvedic Hospitals A copy of the judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 803 of 1986 decided on 20th June, 1989 (Per R.C. Mankad, J.) is at Annexure 'H' to this petition. One more petitioner affected by the Government Resolution at Annexure 'E' to this petition also claimed the benefits of the pay scale for the staff nurses by filing Special Civil Application No. 6166 of 1983 in this Court. Her petition also came to be accepted by the judgment in that case passed on 27th February, 1984 (Per N.H. Bhatt, J.). A copy of the judgment in Special Civil Application No. 6166 of 1983 decided on 27th February, 1984 (Per N.H. Bhatt, J.) is at Annexure 'D' to this petition. I think all these judgments were sufficient for the respondent to extend the benefits of the pay seale for the post of staff nurse to auxiliary nurses and midwives working as staff narses in various Government Ayurvedic Hospitals without waiting for any farther judgment or order from this Court. Unfortunately for the petitoner, she has been denied the benefits of the revised pay seales for the post of staff nurses available to her on account of setting aside of the Government Resolution at Annexure 'E' to this petition by the aforesaid judgments of this Court simply on the ground that she was not a party to any of the aforesaid petitions as averred by her in para 6 at page 6 of this petition.
4. The Courts have time and again emphasised that the Government should be a model employer. The model employer is one who would not deny the just claim of his emplovee or employees on any technical consideration or on any technical ground. Such model employer would not wait for any direction to be given to accept the just claim of his employee or employees. It is not in dispute that the Resolution at Annexure 'E' to this petition covered the present petitioner. The deponent of the reply-affidavit has tried to aver that she is not situated similarly to the petitioners involved in Special Civil Applications Nos. 3238 of 1979, 803 of 1985 and 6166 of 1983. The deponent of the affidavit-in-reply has not chosen to show how the petitioner is not similarly situated as those petitioners. The deponent of the reply-affidavit has not chosen to deny the fact that the petitioner is covered by the Government Resolution at Annexure 'E' to this petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioners of the aforesaid three writ petitions were also covered by the very same Resolution at Annexure 'E' to this petition. In that view of the matter, the contention that the petitioner is not similarly situated has to be stated only to be rejected. Once it is found that she is similarly situated as the petitioners in the aforesaid three petition, she becomes entitled to the benefits, given to those petitioners.
5. The Government as a model employer ought not to have denied to her more very benfits given to the petitioners in the aforesaid three petitions under the orders of this Court. The petitioner in the instant case ought not to have been driven to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances in that regard. It was not necessary for the respondents to have awaited the directions from this Court again to grant the benefits of the revised pay scale for the post of staff nurse to the present petitioner having worked as a staff nurse in the Government Ayurvedic Hospital at Rajkot though she was an auxiliary nurse and midwife.
6. In the result, this petition is accepted. It is not necessary to quash and set aside again the Government Resolution at Annexure 'E' to this petition in view of the aforesaid judgments of this Court in the aforesaid three writ petitions. The respondents are directed to give the benefits of the revised pay scale of Rs. 380-560 to the petitioner as well from 1st January, 1973 till 31st May, 1984, the date on which she retired on superannuation. The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner and to pay the difference of arrears of pay on refixation within four weeks from the date of receipt of writ in this case or from production of a certified copy of this judgment by or on behalf of the petitioner whichever occurs earlier. The Registry of this Court is directed to forward the writ in this case as expeditionsly as possible preferably by 30th April, 1992. Rule is accordingly made absolute however with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.