Delhi High Court
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Jharna Banerjee And Ors. on 17 February, 2016
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 10.02.2016
Pronounced on: 17.02.2016
+ LPA 855/2015 and CM NOS. 28337-28338/2015, CM 30028/2015
and 5034/2016
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC and Mr. Ankur
Chhibber, Advocate.
versus
JHARNA BANERJEE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Padmini Gupta, Advocate, for
Respondent No.1.
Ms. Nanda Devi Deka and Ms. Neha Singh,
Advocates, for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Sanjeev Narula,CGSC with Mr. Ajay Kalra
and Ms. Aastha Jain, Government Pleaders for
UOI.
Mr. Siddharth, Advocate, for Family Planning
Association.
+ LPA 74/2016 and CM NOS. 4107-4109/2016
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC and Mr. Ankur
Chhibber, Advocate.
versus
DR. SHAMPA KHAITAN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula,CGSC with Mr.
Ajay Kalra, Ms. Aastha Jain and Mr. Jitendra
Kumar Tripathi, Government Pleaders for UOI.
Ms. Nanda Devi Deka and Ms. Neha Singh,
Advocates for Private Respondents
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 1
+ LPA 76/2016 and CAV. 105/2016 and CM NOS. 4122-4124/2016
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC along with
Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Advocate, for GNCTD.
versus
SUBHASH CHAND & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Padmini Gupta, Adv. for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC and Mr. S.A.
Saud, Government Pleader for UOI.
Mr. Siddharth, Advocate, for Family Planning
Association
+ LPA 91/2016 and CM NOS. 4841-4843/2016
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC and Mr. Ankur
Chhibber, Advocate.
versus
DR. NIRMAL SHOKEEN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nanda Devi Deka and Ms. Neha
Singh, Advocates for Private Respondents.
Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC and Mr. Shivam
Chanana, Advocate, for UOI.
+ LPA 56/2016 and CM NOS. 2732-2734/2016
GNCT OF DELHI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC along with
Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Advocate, for GNCTD.
versus
MANGALA KHATTAR AND ORS ..... Respondents
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 2
Through: Mr. Siddharth, Advocate, for Family
Planning Association
+ LPA 66/2016 and CM NOS. 3603-3605/2016
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC along with
Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Advocate, for GNCTD.
versus
DR. ALKA NAYAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nanda Devi Deka and Ms. Neha
Singh, Advocates, for Private Respondents.
Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC along with Mr. Siddharth
Dutta, Advocate, for GNCTD.
+ LPA 68/2016 and CM NOS. 3621-3623/2016
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC and Mr. Ankur
Chhibber, Advocate.
versus
DR. PRITEE BHANJA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nanda Devi Deka and Ms. Neha
Singh, Advocates, for Private Respondents.
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Ms. Aastha Jain,
Government Pleader for UOI.
+ LPA 70/2016 and CM NOS. 3779-3781/2016
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC and Mr. Ankur
Chhibber, Advocate.
versus
DR. MRS PREETI SAXENA & ORS ..... Respondents
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 3
Through: Ms. Nanda Devi Deka and Ms. Neha
Singh, Advocates, for Private Respondents.
Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC with Ms. Astha Jain,
Government Pleader, for UOI.
Mr. Charanjeet Singh and Mr. Siddharth,
Advocates, for Respondent No.7 (Andhra Vanita
Mandali)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
%
1. In these appeals, the GNCTD is aggrieved by the judgment and order of a
learned Single Judge partly allowing the writ petitions preferred by the
respondents (hereafter called the "writ petitioners"). The writ petitioners had
sought, inter alia, continuation of their employment as doctors, regularization
of said employment, and the benefit of higher pay/scales and connected
emoluments admissible pursuant to the Sixth Central Pay Commission
recommendations [hereafter "VI PC"]. The impugned judgment declined the
relief of reinstatement/continuation of employment and regularization but
granted the benefit of VI PC till 31.03.2014.
2. The brief facts of the case in all these appeals are that the GNCTD, in
terms of its then prevailing policy, tasked various voluntary agencies/non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) to undertake its voluntary welfare
programmes. These NGOs/voluntary agencies were not part of the GNCTD but
were autonomous and inter alia also carried on other activities. However, in
respect of the family welfare and allied healthcare activities carried out by the
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 4
writ petitioner doctors these agencies received full funding from the GNCTD.
This arrangement was in terms of the Central Government's policies and pattern
of funding and to undertake steps for achieving larger purpose of public
healthcare and family welfare. The Central Government used to provide annual
grants for the purpose of the National Family Welfare programmes formulated
and sought to be implemented by it. However, the implementation provided by
voluntary agencies/NGOs was under the supervision and monitoring of State
Governments and Union Territories.
3. All the writ petitioners were aggrieved by the discontinuance and
termination of their services. The claim for their regularization was rejected.
Learned Single Judge relied upon State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi
2006 (4) SCC 1. He, however, directed the release of benefits accruing to them
on the basis of the VI PC recommendations in the following terms:
"9. No doubt, the writ petition has to be dismissed so far as the
relief claimed of quashing of letters terminating the employment of the
petitioners is concerned, however, in terms of the judgment in the case
of M.P.Singh (supra) petitioners will be entitled to all monetary
benefits which they were entitled to once the respondent no.3 is a
State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India till 31.3.2014. This
aspect is also covered in favour of the petitioners by para 3 of the
judgment in the case of Dr. T. Renuka (supra). Petitioners therefore
will be entitled to all benefits as prescribed by the respondent no.2
which are available to authorities of the State under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India including of salary increases in terms of the 6th
Central Pay Commission till the time their employment continued till
31.3.2014 and from which date the funding of respondent no.3 was
stopped by the respondent no.2. Of course I clarify and hasten to add
that the entitlement of the petitioners to salaries and monetary
emoluments will be till the time the petitioners actually worked with
the respondent no.3 or 31.3.2014 whichever is later and in terms of
extant guidelines of the respondent nos. 1 & 2 applicable to the
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 5
respondent no.3. In case, the necessary dues of the petitioners are not
cleared by the respondent no.3, and to whom the respondent 2 should
grant the necessary funding for clearing of the dues and which shall
be positively done with a period of six weeks from today, thereafter,
petitioners will be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum
simple from the date from which the amounts being the salary
increases and another monetary emoluments became due to the
petitioners.
10. No other issue is pressed or urged before this Court as
otherwise discussed above.
11. The writ petition is however allowed to the extent stated above
of granting the petitioners all monetary emoluments including
increases of their salaries in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission
till 31.3.2014 as were being paid to any other arm/authority of the
State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India."
4. It is argued by Sh. Sanjay Ghose, learned counsel on behalf of the
GNCTD that the learned Single Judge fell into error in directing release of the
VI PC benefits. He highlighted that the GNCTD was discharging the role of a
disbursing authority and used to just pass on the funds received, to the
concerned NGO/voluntary agencies. Reliance is placed upon the letter of the
Central Government dated 19.04.2010 which had clearly stated that the
recommendations of the VI PC are inapplicable to staff employed by the
NGOs/voluntary organizations. The relevant extracts of the said letter are as
follows:
"No.N.12012/01/2009-SS
Government of India
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
(Department of Family Welfare)
NirmanBhavan, New Delhi
Dated the 19th April 2010
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 6
To,
The Director (Family Welfare)
Directorate of Family Welfare,
Govt. of NCT Delhi,
BhagwanMahavir Hospital Residential Complex,
Road No.43, PITAM PURA,
Delhi-34.
Subject: Implementation of 6th Pay Commission to the staff working in
UFWCS/UHPs run by NGOs under National Family Welfare
Programmes - regarding
----------------------------------------------
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter No.F.(350)PLY/DFW/09-
10/19964 dated 30.03.2010 on the subject noted above and to inform
you that
1. For Government of India, the Govt. of NCT Delhi has the
status of a grantee state in respect of the scheme for National Family
Welfare Programme. The Government of India has been giving
annual grants for perpetuating the cause of National Family Welfare
Programmes. Government of India does not own the responsibilities
in the administrative matters pertaining to the staff of grantee
organizations, and
2. The recommendations of Pay Commissions are not applicable
to the Staff working in Urban Family Welfare Centres/Urban Health
Posts run by Voluntary Organizations/NGOs running Urban Family
Welfare Centres/Urban Health Posts under National Family Welfare
Programme.
Kindly acknowledge the receipt of this letter.
Yours faithfully,
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 7
Sd/-
(KUSUM BHARDWAJ)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India"
5. It was submitted that all the NGOs/voluntary organizations were
intimated about this decision by the GNCTD in its letter, dated 03.05.2010,
which was placed on record. Learned counsel urged that all these were
completely ignored by the learned Single Judge, who, on an assumption that the
writ petitioners were entitled to pay parity, directed release of VI PC benefits.
6. The GNCTD next relied upon various letters written in January 2012 to
NGOs/voluntary organizations pointing out deficiencies in their performance.
These letters, emphasized counsel, had clearly spelt out that the task given to
the NGOs/Voluntary agencies, where the writ petitioners were employed as
doctors, was being unsatisfactorily discharged. Therefore, these agencies had
notice of the possibility of imminent termination of the funding arrangement.
Consequently the doctors, who were not employed by the GNCTD, had no right
to claim parity with regularly appointed doctors. It was submitted that even
contract doctors working for the GNCTD are not paid regular scales and are
paid on different scales. Therefore, the learned Single Judge fell into error in
directing that the VI CPC benefits should be extended to the writ petitioners.
7. Mr. Ghose, learned counsel also argued that the impugned judgment is in
error inasmuch that it did not properly appreciate the import of the learned
Single Judge's previous decision, in Dr. T. Renuka & Ors v Govt of NCT of
Delhi [W.P. (C) 9063/2011, decided on 27.11.2013), which had declined the
same relief to another doctor. Reliance on the judgment in M.P. Singh & Ors v
Delhi Administration [W.P.(C) 3007/1989, decided on 05.08.1992], was not
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 8
warranted, submitted counsel. It was lastly argued that the Union Government's
decision of 19.04.2010 ultimately led to the discontinuance of the scheme itself.
As a result, the writ petitioners, who were unsuccessful in their challenge to the
order of termination, could not have contended that they had a right to equal
remuneration or equal pay.
8. Ms. Padmini Gupta, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, argued that
the learned Single Judge's impugned judgment and order should not be
interfered with. She pointed out that the previous ruling in M.P. Singh (supra)
had gone into the question of the nature of work performed by the petitioner
doctors under the scheme which was originally formulated in 1964 and
continued ever since. She highlighted that the Court had noticed that at the time
of their selection, the petitioners had given up other employment because they
were assured pay scales at par with what was offered by the Government.
Moreover, though these doctors' employers were not state agencies, but NGOs,
the funding for the entire project, which was intrinsically a state obligation- was
by the Central Government, through the aegies and agency of the local State/UT
Government . Even during the selection of these doctors, the Government's
representative was present; the targets and mode of implementation of the
scheme were planned and set by the Central Government. No doubt, monitoring
was left to the GNCTD. These clearly showed that the GNCTD had control
over the activities of the NGOs/petitioners' employers. This decision in M.P.
Singh (supra) was appealed against. Those matters pertained to the grant of pay
scales pursuant to the Fourth Pay Commission recommendations. Even the pay
increase after the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations were not
implemented, which resulted in another set of proceedings (Mita Chakraborti &
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 9
Ors v GNCTD). Another learned Single Judge followed the decision in M.P.
Singh (supra) and held that the benefit of Fifth Pay Commission
recommendations was to be granted. The Division Bench rejected the
GNCTD's appeal in M.P. Singh [LPA 54/1992, decided on 18.11.2005). The
GNCTD's special leave petition to the Supreme Court (SLP No. 6693/2006),
was dismissed on 24.04.2006. Likewise, urged Ms. Gupta, the obligation to
extend benefits of the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations became
final with the dismissal of the GNCTD's appeal, by the Division Bench, in
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v Mita Chakraborti & Ors. [LPA Nos. 2537-39/2005,
decided on 02.05.2006].
9. Counsel for the writ petitioners/doctors argued that there is no doubt that
the GNCTD was obliged to, and was paying scales which were applicable to its
doctors all the while. Whenever the question of increase in pay scales, pursuant
to the recommendations of Pay Commissions arose (the Fourth Central Pay
Commission and the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations) the GNCTD
invariably resurrected its rejected argument that such benefits could not be
given to the respondent doctors because they were not Government employees.
Each time, the doctors were compelled to seek the Court's aid; each time the
GNCTD lost and the matter attained finality. These doctors even were forced to
avail of contempt remedies, which led to the ultimate decision (and
implementation) of the principle that without being driven to litigation, all
doctors equally circumstanced would be given the benefit of revised pay scales.
In these circumstances, argued counsel, there are no equities in favour of the
GNCTD, which cannot urge that these doctors have no right to same pay scales.
Without any change in the circumstances, the Government cannot rake up
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 10
settled issues and seek to defeat the rights of the respondent doctors.
10. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent doctors were not made
aware of the so called deficiencies which led to the termination of the
arrangement between their employers and the GNCTD; moreover, the
correspondence relied on was inter se GNCTD and the Central Government. As
far as the doctors were concerned, plainly they were performing what is
essentially a state obligation or function, i.e promoting family welfare programs
and undertaking health care activities. Their claim against termination has been
negatived; they cannot also seek regularization. After working for long stretches
of time, their only grievance is that the parity, which they enjoyed continuously
with GNCTD doctors, is sought to be disturbed without any rhyme or reason; it
is arbitrary.
Analysis and Conclusions
11. The history of this litigation reveals that on two previous occasions-
when the issue of parity between the respondent doctors and those in the
GNCTD vis-à-vis prescribed scales, placed in the context of pay revisions arose,
the appellants stonewalled their demands. The GNCTD's insistence that since
they were not Government doctors, they were disentitled to the same pay scales,
was in issue in two previous litigations [M.P. Singh (supra) and Mita
Chakraborti (supra)]. In both cases, the learned Judges and Division Benches
ruled against the GNCTD and in favour of the doctors. M.P. Singh (supra)
examined the issue closely and the Court concluded that the nature of
responsibilities and obligations cast on the doctors, cent percent funding for the
programs and their pay, the manner of their selection and recruitment as well as
other features, established that they were entitled to parity in pay scales;
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 11
consequently, parity in revised pay scales. M.P Singh was even tested before the
Supreme Court, which dismissed the GNCTD's special leave petition in limine.
12. An important feature of this case is that the GNCTD has been unable
to establish any significant change in the circumstances, which compelled
it to say that the VI PC revisions made applicable to its employees from
01.01.2006 could no longer be given or extended to the respondent doctors.
If the primary and consistent stand had been that they are entirely disparate
and parity to the extent of revised pay parity could not be granted, perhaps
that might have been justified. However, that is not the case; each time,
there was a Central Pay Commission recommendation (4th and 5th CPC
reports) the GNCTD denied revised pay parity to these doctors; each time,
it could not persuade the Court that its action was legal and warranted. It
relies on a letter written to it by the Central Government on 19.04.2010,
which states that the latter (Central Government) had been "giving annual
grants for perpetuating the cause of National Family Welfare
Programmes." The Central Government stated that it did not "own the
responsibilities in the administrative matters"relating to staff of the NGOs
and that
"The recommendations of Pay Commissions are not
applicable to the Staff working in Urban Family Welfare
Centres/Urban Health Posts run by Voluntary
Organizations/NGOs running Urban Family Welfare
Centres/Urban Health Posts under National Family Welfare
Programme."
13. There is no rationale for this view. Neither the GNCTD nor the Central
Government state why this policy volte face, as it were, occurred in 2010, apart
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 12
from stating that such change of view occurred. An identical situation had
occurred after the Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendations, which
impelled some doctors to approach in M.P. Singh (supra). This is what the
Court said then:
"It had also exercised control in the selection of the petitioners
through its nominee on the interview board. After having employed
the petitioners on the understanding that they will be entitled to the
same pay and allowances as the Government employees performing
similar duties, the Respondent No.l unilaterally and without any
notice purported to introduce a modification in the conditions of
service without any justification for such change in the conditions of
service of the petitioners' which had the effect of adversely affecting
the staff, i.e. the petitioners in this case, on the basis of a letter dated
9.11.1981 from Government of India which had provided, inter-alia,
the following:
"3. Meanwhile many States had revised the pay-scales of their
employees during the years 1973-76. But due to the restrictions
imposed by the 19th August, 1976 orders, many voluntary
organizations in various States/U.Ts could not revise the pay-scales of
their staff to bring these at par with the revised pay-scales of parallel
staff in the State Govt., UTs concerned. In order to remove the
grievance of the employees or such voluntary organizations, the
Government of India have reviewed the entire matter and taken the
following decisions:
(i) the State Govts/U.Ts may allow revision of pay-scales in respect of
employees of those voluntary organizations, local bodies etc. where
the scales of pay of these organizations were previously at par with
the corresponding posts in the State Govts./U.Ts before the scales of
pay were revised by the States/U.Ts and it is now proposed to bring
them at par with the revised scales of pay of the respective State
Govt./U.T.
(ii) where the voluntary organizations/local bodies etc. have an
independent scale of pay for their staff, which the above ban, the
scales of pay of the F.W. staff may also be revised to bring them on
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 13
par with the revised pay-scales of the voluntary organization etc.
provided that such scales of pay are not more than the scales of pay of
corresponding staff employed by the respective State Govt./U.T. In
case the scales of pay of the voluntary organization etc. are more than
the scales of pay of the respective State Govt./U.T. then the Central
assistance will be restricted to the State/UT scales of pay.
The above will be subject to the proviso that where the
voluntary organizations/local bodies etc. have adopted different
scales of pay, for their own staff and for the staff employed on Family
Welfare schemes being implemented with Government assistance the
scales of pay of the staff engaged in FW work should conform to the
lower of the scales, of pay viz., the scales of pay given to their own
staff or the scales of pay of the respective State Govt./UT."
However, it appears that the said letter was not acted upon
even in 1986 when interim relief recommended by 4th Pay
Commission for Government Servants was paid to the petitioners.
However, the benefits under the 4th Pay Commission which were paid
to the Govt. servants doing work similar to the petitioners in 1988
were not extended to the petitioners. No explanation was offered to
justify such action of respondent No.1 acting on this communication
in 1988, only in the case of petitioners although persons employed at
all other centres run by other societies and organizations in Delhi
have been extended the benefits under the 4th Pay Commission by
Respondent No.1. Even the staff of Family Planning Centres set up by
Respondent No.2 in other states under such programmes have also
since been paid the pay and allowances in terms of 4th Pay
Commission in line with what was paid to Government employees
performing similar jobs.
************** ******************"
The reasoning why the revised pay parity was to be restored, is found in the
following discussion:
"Moreover, in the present case the Family Planning Centres
similar to the one in which the petitioners are working were got set
up by Respondent No.l through various organizations and societies
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 14
such as Respondent No.2 for promoting the programme of family
planning which is one of the important functions undertaken by the
Government and bearing total cost of running such centres
including payment of pay and allowances to the staff employed to
man such centres. The terms of employment including pay and
allowances are fixed by Respondent No.l which had declared those
to be on par with the government employees discharging functions
similar to the functions discharged by the petitioners. An important
question for consideration in the present case is as to whether
Respondent No.1 could withhold the benefits flowing from the 4th
Pay Commission from the petitioners though those benefits had been
extended to the Government servants performing duties similar to
those discharged by the petitioners. As already observed above, the
Respondent No.1 has not disputed its liability to bear 100% expense
on running such centres including pay and allowances to the
petitioners though through Respondent No.2. It may be added that in
a case like the present one where the State gets its job done through a
society by bearing full cost thereof and exercises control over
selection and performance of the staff employed for the job such
technical objections cannot be sustained. I must state that the
Respondent No.l has not raised any objection to the maintainability of
the writ petition. Objections, in the present case should not stand in
the way of the Court, since relief is sought against the Respondent
No.1 for making payments in implementation of 4th Pay
Commission."
The very same logic applies, with equal rigor in the present instance too.
The GNCTD's attempt to say that the doctors' job was not up to standard,
and that their employers were notified of lapses in the administration of the
system, relate to instances in 2012. However, it is a matter of fact that pay
revision was given effect to in respect of doctors with effect from
01.01.2006. Nor was any logic or rationale forthcoming, when as late as on
02.05.2006, the pay revision parity in respect of these very employees'
entitlements to the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations became final
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 15
with the dismissal of the GNCTD's appeal to the Division Bench, in Mita
Chakraborti (supra).
14. The writ petitioners' claim to revised pay scale at par with what was
granted earlier, whenever previous pay revisions took place due to Pay
Commission recommendations, stands established as an undisputed matter
of record. Each time this claim was made, the GNCTD and Central
Government refused to grant the relief; the Court equally repelled the
legality of such stand. In the circumstances, the claim of the
respondent/doctors is based on historical parity consistently upheld by this
Court. This claim is supported by decisions of this Court in Municipal
Corporation of Delhi vs Workmen Virender Kumar & Ors. (LPA 581/2010,
decided on 07.10.2015) and Dgof Employees Association v Union Of India
And Ors [W.P.(C) 4606/2013, decided on 14.10.2014].
15. The Supreme Court, through several decisions-M/s Star Enterprises &
Ors v City Industrial Development of Maharashtra Ltd 1990 (3) SCC 280
held that the executive government and authorities have to justify their
action in various fields through reasons. Earlier, in Union Of India vs Mohan
Lal Capoor AIR 1974 SC 87 too, the necessity for giving reasons for an
executive order was emphasized. In the present case, no reasons are
forthcoming as to why the long established parity with regard to granting
revisions in pay, pursuant to Pay Commission recommendations, has not
been followed. Granted, the respondents could not insist on the application
of the "equal pay for equal work" principle. Yet their claim is not a first time
claim for parity; it is that having once admitted parity- at the inception and
indeed having been forced to concede parity whenever revisions took place
in the past, without any change in the circumstances, the respondents could
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 16
not have validly refused the benefits of the VI PC recommendations. In this,
the Court finds considerable merit. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness, which
stares at one in the face, if it is realized that the Appellant/GNCTD has no
justification to deny the benefit of pay revision.
16. The Centre's share of spending (`25,154 crores) on Health and Family
Welfare schemes in 2010-11 was 0.36% of the total GDP of the country.
This expenditure increased to `39,238 crores in 2014-15 but the share of
GDP decreased to 0.30%. The Union Government and the country have
been committed to ensure greater access to health facilities; in this scheme
of things, family welfare is crucial. The involvement of the GNCTD and the
Central Government, and their commitment to these issues is undoubted. If
these are kept in mind, there is no doubt that the respondent doctors were
discharging duties that essentially fell within the domain of the Central
Government's responsibilities. It would be idle, and too late in the day to say
that the Central Government or GNCTD ceased to have any interest in such
activities.
17. Considering these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the
respondents in the present case had a justifiable grievance in saying that the
GNCTD and the Central Government were under an obligation to ensure
payment of revised pay benefits which the learned Single Judge had ordered.
Their claim was justified and warranted for the period beginning 01.01.2006
to 01.04.2014 (the latter being the date when the doctors' services were
dispensed with). This Court is also of the opinion that any inter se
differences between the GNCTD as regards payment would have to be
resolved within the institutional framework available to them within four
months. However, that cannot delay the release of arrears which the
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 17
respondent doctors are entitled to - this shall be given to them, within eight
weeks from today.
18. The appeals are dismissed as meritless, but subject to the above
directions. No costs.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 17, 2016
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 18
