UNION OF INDIA Vs. MANU DEV ARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 7-8-1998 passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, in Writ Appeal No. 6 of 1998 whereby and whereunder it refused to interfere with the judgment and order passed by a learned single Judge of the said Court allowing a writ petition filed by the respondent herein.

(2.) The respondent was appointed as Research Assistant (H) with the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy on or about 28-9-1987 in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 425-700/- (revised 1400-2300/-). He had been getting Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) at the rate of Rs. 75/- in the pre-revised scale of pay. The doctors and physicians, however, were getting Non-practicing Allowance in the pre-revised pay scale at the rate of Rs. 150/-. Non-practicing Allowance of the doctors and physicians in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- was revised with effect from 1-1-1986 in terms of an order of the government of India dated 27-2-1991. A representation was made by the respondent claiming the enhanced rate of Non-practicing Allowance which was not allowed. A writ petition thereafter was filed by the respondent herein before the High Court praying for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the appellant herein to pay Non-Practicing Allowance at the enhanced rate which should be commensurate to the revision in the Non-practicing Allowance paid to the doctors and physicians.

(3.) The learned single Judge of the High Court formulated a question for his determination as to whether the respondent herein had been made victim of hostile discrimination by the appellant by reason of non grant of any enhancement on the Non Practicing Allowance. Applying the principles laid down in Articles 14 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India, the learned single Judge held that the doctors and physicians on the one hand and the Research Officers in Homeopathic department, on the other, cannot be treated differently and thus, the appellants must be held to have made hostile discrimination without there being any reasonable ground for making a differential treatment in the matter of enhancement of Non-practicing Allowance payable to the respondent.