Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

However, the respondents failed to submit any reply. Being aggrieved, against the withdrawal of the said order, an OA came to be filed before this Tribunal being O.A. No.1062/2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.03.2023. In the said order, this Tribunal had made the following observations:

"13. The present case of the applicants pertains to AMI who are seeking parity with Vaccinators designated as PHI. Since the respondents have already taken a view vide Order dated 18.05.2011, as already highlighted above, wherein, it was held held that AMI cannot be equated with Vaccinators, who were discharging the duty as Inoculator and Immunizer, were given the pay scale of Rs.330-560 Rs.330 560 on the analogy of Inoculators and LHVs on the basis of 'equal pay for equal work' in compliance of the Orders oof the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-1 Tribunal 1 in Award passed on 23.09.1988 and were designated as PHIs. It is also not clear from the record, as stated by the respondents, that the order dated 16.01.2018 was passed on the basis of misrepresentation of facts facts keeping the Senior Officers in dark. However, no such material has been placed on record. It is also highlighted that the impugned Office Order dated 21.02.2018 though has been passed immediately after passing of the order dated 16.01.2018, however, th the benefits which have been granted pursuant to order dated 16.01.2018 cannot be taken away by a cryptic order dated 21.02.2018 without giving the opportunity of hearing to the applicants herein.
"23.
23. Besides P.U. Joshi (supra) which, as seen earlier, does not help MCD's 's case on its own, CAT also relied upon the fact that the petitioner/applicants were not provided inoculation training. This was W.P.(C) 2259/2012 Page 15 also the basis of the O Office Order, dated 5.10.2009, in which it was stated:
"The present Vaccinators cannot claim parity with Inoculators/Vaccinators as they never performed the duties of the Inoculators. Since Public Health Inspector is promotional post of Assistant Public Health alth Inspector and as per RRs being framed Assistant Public Health Inspector will be considered for promotion to the post of Public Health Inspector after fulfilling qualifying service in the post of Assistant Public Health Inspector, APHI cannot be placed in the grade of Rs. 5000 - 8000."

24. Therefore, this case must turn upon the fact as to whether that is a relevant difference, justifying the difference in pay pay-scales. Here this Court notes four important sets of facts in this regard. The first is that the bifurcation between the posts of PHI and APHI, with different paypay- scales, was not undertaken pursuant to any amendment in the Recruitment Rules. The Recruitment Rules, therefore, continue to have only one category of O.A. No.3269/2023 with Item No.40 (Court - 5) O.A. No.3745/2023 "Vaccinators", with identical qualifications qualifications and paypay-scale. These qualifications are limited to sanitary/health inspector diploma from a recognized institution or equivalent, and draw no distinction on the basis of prior training in inoculation. The second is the MCD Circular dated 18.10.2007, which lists out the duties of the PHI and the APHI. Both sets of 18.10.2007, employees are required to investigate the occurrence of any illness/outbreak/unusual event, distribute chlorine tablets and ORS packets, set up chlorine and ORS depots, and take health eeducation measures; both sets of employees are required to perform "immunizations as and when required", "supervision of cremation grounds, burial grounds etc.", prosecutions under the W.P.(C) 2259/2012 Page 16 DMC Act against unlicensed trades", "surveillance of communicable and non non-communicable diseases under Integrated Disease Surveillance Project" etc. Furthermore, one of the responsibilities of the APHI is to "assist PHIs in any job/duty assigned to him". These facts reveals that, for the most part, the APHIs and the PHIs are performing identical functions, for which identical qualifications are needed. The differences - e.g, the responsibility of the APHIs to attend fairs and festivals for preventive health measures - are cosmetic, and are not relevant to the distinction between the two categories, i.e. the fact that the category of vaccinators working in the PHI category had received extra inoculation training.

Moreover, though the respondents maintain that PHI and APHI are performing the different duties, yet we find that the qualifications for both posts in the recruitment ru rules being identical, the additional factor of training for immunization is a device methodology of the respondents to save all vaccinators earlier with the nomenclature of inoculators being ousted from the Department." As such, they were given re re-designation to the post of Vaccinator otherwise we do not find any real difference in Vaccinators and Inoculators, as both the words by their literal sense refer to as a basic ingredient of Vaccinator."