Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MULTIPURPOSE HEALTH WORKERSASSOCIATION & OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/05/1996
BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
RAY, G.N. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (6) 111 1996 SCALE (4)457
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
HANSARIA, J.
Special leave granted.
2. The appellant - association’s members are Multipurpose
Health Workers of Haryana. The only question we have been
called upon to decide is whether the higher pay scale of Rs.
1200-2040 to these workers to be made available to them with
effect from 1.5.1990, instead of 1.1.1994?
3. The appellants have their claim for the earlier date on
two grounds :(1) the notification dated 26.7.1991 of the
State Government raising the pay scales of " some technical
posts" to Rs. 1200-2040 itself demanded the higher pay scale
from 1.5.1990, as the same is the effective date of the
notification: and (2) other holders of technical posts
having been given the aforesaid pay scale with effect from
1.5.1990, there exists no cogent reason to deny same to the
Multipurpose Health Workers who discharge the same function
as those to whom the higher pay scale was given from
1.5.1990.
4. The case of State on the other hand , is that the
aforesaid notification in terms has no application to the
Multipurpose Health Workers because the qualification
"prescribed " by the notification is "ITI
Certificates/Diploma from any Polytechnic. The case of the
appellants, however, is that the certificate course of the
ITI is of one year’s duration and the minimum educational
qualification is Matriculation, whereas the training period
of the Multipurpose Health Workers is of 1-1/2 year’s
duration or 1 year depending upon the sex of the incumbents,
and their minimum educational qualification being also
Matriculation, the training imparted by the department to
them has to be taken as equal to that one received in the
ITIs. The State’s Director General of Health Services has
taken this view as would appear from his letter No.31/1 Spl.
MCH-93/5791 dated 4.11.1993. One thing, however, is opparent
that the concerned workers had not received the training of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
which the notification dated 26.7.1991 speaks of.
5. The State counsel brought to our notice the decision of
Punjab and Haryana High Court taking the view that nature,
content and quality of the course prescribed for the job of
Multipurpose Health Worker is different from the course of
an ITI/Polytechnic trained persons. Being of this view, the
writ petition filed by the appellants themselves before the
High Court claiming equality with others technical workers
was dismissed, which came to be accepted, as this Court had
not been approached making any grievance regarding the view
taken by the High Court.
6. In the aforesaid premises, we entertain no doubt that the
Multipurpose Health Workers are not entitled to the revised
pay scale with effect from 1.5.1990 by the force of the
notification.
7. In so far as the second ground is concerned, we have
again been referred by the learned counsel for the
appellants to the view of the Director General of Health
Services as expressed in the aforesaid letter. Though it is
correct that the Director General of Health Services
strongly recommended the case of the appellants in his
aforesaid communication, the State Government did not accept
the same and decided to revise the pay scale with effect
from 1.1.1994, as would appear from the communication of the
Financial Commissioner and Secretary to the Government,
Finance Department, dated 21.3.1994 addressed to the
Director General of Health Services by referring to his
letter of 4.11.1993. As the decision was taken by the
Government on 11th March, 1994, the fixing of the date as
1.1.1994 to give effect to the revised pay scale cannot be
said to be in any way arbitrary; it is indeed rational.
8. We do not, however, propose to decide the appeal merely
on the basis of the decision of the Government to make
available the higher pay scale from 11.1.1994,though the
same has to be kept in mind, because the Director Generals’
view has only persuasive value, it is not binding on the
Government. What is more important is that though the
Director General mentioned about various work done by the
Health Workers - immunization, making of blood pads,
engagement in family welfare programme and attending to
minor ailment - we do not know about the nature and quality
of duties of other holders of technical posts who were given
the higher pay scale from 1.5.1990. Without this information
being available to us, we cannot ask for equalization of the
pay of the Health Workers with the concerned technical post
holders.
9. Thus, there is no cogent reason to accept the contention
of the appellant to make the revised pay scale effective
from 1.5.1990. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to
bear their own costs throughout.