Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. Ajay Kumar And Others. ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 6 March, 2020
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 73 of 2020
Dr. Ajay Kumar and others. ..............Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others. ...Respondents
Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri B.P.S. Mer, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Dated: 6th March, 2020
Coram:Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble Ravi Malimath, J.
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) Heard Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri B.P.S. Mer, learned Brief Holder for the State Government and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioners are all doctors serving in the hilly and rural areas of the State of Uttarakhand in compliance with the conditions stipulated in the bonds executed by them while prosecuting their undergraduate medical courses at the Government medical colleges at Haldwani and Srinagar.
3. The State Government had introduced a Scheme, whereby students, who desired to avail the concessional fee, were required to execute a bond undertaking to serve in the hilly and rural areas of the State of Uttarakhand for a period of five years. This Scheme was formulated by the Government of Uttarakhand in view of the acute shortage of doctors, more particularly in the hilly and rural areas of the State, which did not have adequate medical facilities. The conditions of the bond, however, placed a corresponding obligation on the State Government to pay these doctors, who were required to serve in the hilly and rural areas of the State of Uttarakhand, the pay-scales as applicable to regularly appointed medical officers in this State.
24. It is the petitioners' case that, while they have complied with their obligations under the bond and have served in the hilly and rural areas of the State of Uttarakhand for the past two years, the State Government has failed to adhere to its obligations under the bond, and has failed to pay them regular pay-scales; it is only after they had served for a period of two years in the hilly and rural areas of the State of Uttarakhand, are they now paid the regular pay-scales as are being paid to the regular employees; and the present claim is for payment of the arrears of salary, representing the difference in salary between what regular medical officers in the State are entitled to and the amounts actually paid to the petitioners, and for application of the relevant service rules. Reliance is paced by the petitioners on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. Abhishek Bandooni and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and another Writ Petition (S/B) No. 179 of 2018 dated 02.11.2018 in this regard.
5. While it is no doubt true that the Division Bench had, in the aforesaid order, directed payment of salary to the petitioners, at par with the regularly appointed medical officers, with arrears within a period of ten weeks, we are satisfied that no mandamus can be issued, since these are all matters for the State Government to consider, and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.
6. Suffice it, instead of keeping the writ petition pending on the file of this Court, to permit the petitioners to make a representation, relying on the Division Bench judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) N:;o. 179 of 2018 dated 02.11.2018, in respect of their claim to be paid arears of salary and for application of the relevant service rules. In case, any such representation is made, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law bearing in mind that, pursuant to the earlier order of the Division Bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 179 of 2018 dated 02.11.2018, other doctors, who had complied with their obligations under the bond and had served in 3 the hilly and rural areas of the State of Uttarakhand, were paid regular scale of pay, along with arrears. The entire exercise, culminating in an order being passed and communicated to the petitioners, shall be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioners' representation.
7. Needless to state that, in case the respondents are satisfied that the petitioners are entitled for payment of arrears, then payment shall be made within four weeks after the petitioners' representation is decided in accordance with law. The petitioners' claim for the Service Rules to be applied to their cases shall also be considered within the aforesaid period.
8. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
(Ravi Malimath, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) 06.03.2020 06.03.2020 Rathour