Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Exchange of affidavits by the parties over the years having resulted in a multitude of pleadings, the contents thereof are summarized hereunder:

The petitioners case as set forth in her writ affidavit: The Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam, issued Temporary Memo No.109/73 dated 06.08.1973 through the Chief Staff Officer (Personnel & Administration)(P & A), acting for the Flag Officer Commanding-in-

Chief, inviting applications for the posts of a Full Time Lady Doctor and a qualified Nurse in the subject Naval Family Clinic. The posts were initially for a period of one year but were stated to be likely to continue. The Notification specified, under Clause (e) relating to Administration/Control, that the appointees would be subject to administrative control and discipline by the Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command. It was also specified that the duties of the Family Clinic assigned to them by the Commanding Officer, Indian Naval Hospital Ship (INHS) Kalyani, should be strictly adhered to as per the Instructions/Orders issued from time to time.

The petitioner thereupon submitted representation dated 23.02.1998 seeking regularization of her services. This representation was submitted to the Flag Officer Commanding-in- Chief, Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam. However, the Chief Staff Officer (P & A), acting for the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command, rejected the representation of the petitioner under order dated 29.06.1998. The reason for rejection, as is evident therefrom, was that the petitioner was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and was not interviewed for the post of Nurse/Staff Nurse against Government sanction. The order also recorded that the Family Clinic, where the petitioner was appointed, was a Non-Public Fund Organization and that the petitioner was paid out of Non- Public Funds. The petitioner was therefore said to have failed to make out a case for her regularization against Government Billet.

In compliance with the above order, the Chief Staff Officer (P & A), Headquarters, acting for the Flag Officer Commanding-in- Chief, Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam, filed affidavit dated 10.10.2012. Therein, he stated that the Family Clinic at Nausena Baugh, Visakhapatnam, was created out of Non-Public Funds as a welfare measure for the families of the personnel serving in the Navy and the aim of the Family Clinic was to provide primary medical cover for minor ailments in order to ease the burden on the Military Hospitals and also to avoid wastage of time of family members of serving naval personnel in going all the way to the main hospital, i.e., INHS Kalyani. He further stated that there was no Government sanction for setting up Family Clinics and, therefore, the entire staff, including doctors and nurses working there were paid honorarium out of Non-Public Funds which were generated through contributions from officers and sailors. He further stated that it was only for the purpose of general administration that the Family Clinic was placed under the Officer Incharge, Station Health Organization, Visakhapatnam, under the guidance of the Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command. As regards the pointed queries posed by this Court in the order dated 20.09.2012, he stated that there was no sanctioned post of Staff Nurse in the Naval Hospital, INHS Kalyani, and the Nursing Staff of the hospital were stated to belong to the Military Nursing Service (MNS), a uniformed service, which was subject to the Army Act, 1950. Details were furnished of the persons who were appointed as civilian Staff Nurses in the Naval Hospital at Visakhapatnam. The essential qualification for appointment as a civilian Staff Nurse in the Naval Hospital was stated to be Matriculation or equivalent; a Certificate of Training as a Nurse from an approved hospital; and registration as a fully Trained Nurse in Medical and Surgical Nursing and Midwifery. He also furnished details of the pay scales applicable to Staff Nurses since 1973. As regards the appointing authority, he stated that till August, 1979, the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief was the appointing authority for Staff Nurses in Naval Hospitals and thereafter, the powers were delegated to the Chief Staff Officer (P & A), Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command. He denied that the appointing authority was the same for personnel in the Naval Hospital and the Family Clinics.

Further, there is no escaping the fact that the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Headquarters Eastern Naval Command, through the Chief Staff Officer (P & A), issued proceedings dated 30.08.1974 informing the petitioner that upon her completion of one year service, a pay scale was fixed for her along with DA, HRA, Uniform, Washing and Messing Allowances. She continued against a pay scale till the year 1993, when the terms and conditions of her appointment were unilaterally altered. The pay-drawn certificate dated 20.02.1985 filed by the petitioner reflects that she was paid Rs.1,782.93 ps. thereunder and the break-up thereof encompasses payment towards basic pay, DA, Additional DA, Kit upkeep allowance, Hair cutting allowance, Soap allowance, CCA allowance and Interim Relief. In effect, she was treated as a regular employee on a pay scale for nearly 20 years. There is no explanation from the naval authorities as to why the petitioner remained on a pay scale for such a long time if her appointment was to a temporary post on a consolidated honorarium. Their feeble explanation that it was by inadvertence that her honorarium was termed a pay scale is liable to be rejected in the light of the pay certificates produced by the petitioner, which clearly indicate to the contrary. Apart from this, the petitioner was subjected to the disciplinary and administrative control of the Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command. Such control would invariably vest in the employer and unless the required relationship existed between the Eastern Naval Command and the petitioner, the power of administrative and disciplinary control could not have been exercised by such authority over the petitioner.