CHANDRIKA PRASHAD TIWARI Vs. DELHI BHARTIYA CHIKITSA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for, as follows:

(2.) Concisely, the facts emerging from the record are that initially the petitioner was appointed as a Peon by the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine in short 'AUSM', which was constituted under East- Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1949 in short 'the Unani Practitioners Act, 1949, vide Memo dated 10.10.1968 in the pay-scale of Rs.70-1-80-EB-1-85 and other allowances as approved by Delhi Administration. On 20.08.1992 AUSM promoted the petitioner as LDC in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-20-1150-EB-25-1500 w.e.f. 23.04.1992. On coming into force of the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act, 1998 in short 'the Parishad Act, 1998', the Unani Practitioners Act, 1949 came to be repealed w.e.f. 01.01.2001. Resultantly, in and by virtue of the Parishad Act, 1998, the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, in short, 'the Parishad', substituted AUSM. On 30.06.2005, the petitioner retired from the services of the Parishad. Later, the petitioner came to be employed by the Parishad as UDC on contract basis w.e.f. 21.02.2006 on a consolidated salary of Rs.17,060/- p.m. His such contractual employment was extended from time to time till the year 2015. It appears, in the year 2012, the petitioner and one another, made representations to the Registrar of the Parishad for being granted pensionary benefits. To that, no response is said to have been given. Thus, the instant writ petition.

(3.) The petition proceeds on the premise that on the Parishad Act, 1998 coming into effect and Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Rules, 2000 in short 'the Parishad Rules' having been notified thereunder w.e.f. 23.08.2001, the petitioner was entitled to pension. According to him, the rules and regulations governing the employees of Government of Delhi were applicable to Parishad staff in all service matters. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been denied pension in violation of the fundamental rights of equality as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as while the employees of the Central Government and the State Government were extended the benefit of pension, the employees of the Parishad were denied such benefit arbitrarily. According to the petitioner, the Parishad forms part of the State and on account thereof, the conditions of service and the rules and the regulations governing the employees of Government of Delhi were applicable to the employees of the Parishad. As a corollary, it is pleaded that the pension in old age is essential for one's sustenance and the State, in the given case­the Parishad, was bound to provide for adequate means of livelihood to its employees as enshrined under Article 39 of the Constitution of India.