LAWS(ALL)-2021-9-95

AVINASH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On September 02, 2021
AVINASH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions have raised common grievance, and hence they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. The petitioners are Allopathic doctors who have served under the State Government and have since retired. They are aggrieved by the Government orders dtd. 14/7/2020 and 04/09/2020 whereby they have been denied the revised rate of Non-Practicing Allowance on the ground that they have retired prior to the cutoff date 24/08/2009, while doctors similarly placed and who have retired after 24/08/2009 has been entitled to the revised rate of Non-Practicing Allowance, and hence, they assert to have been unreasonably discriminated, and have prayed for setting aside of the said Government orders as well as the recovery orders passed in consequence of the impugned orders.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioners are retired Allopathic Doctors of the Provincial Medical and Health Services of Government of U.P who have superannuated prior to 24/08/2009. The Government of Uttar Pradesh promulgated the U.P. Government Doctors (Allopathic) Restriction on Private Practice Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as, Rules of 1983). By means of the aforesaid Rules of 1983 restriction was placed on Government Doctors and they were banned from obtaining any pecuniary advantage by engaging in private consultancy, and in lieu of the said restriction a Non- Practising Allowance was made available to them, which was to be determined by the State Government.

(3.) In exercise of its delegated power, the State Government vide order dtd. 31/08/1989 has not only revised the rate of Non-Practicing Allowance but also provided that it will be treated as part of pay for all service benefits including DA, TA and other allowances and also for pensionary benefits. Subsequently, the rates were revised in 2003 and they were made applicable uniformly on all including the petitioners.