DR.M.M.SWAMI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a common issue is raised and, therefore, they are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners in the Writ Petition No.7365 of 2004 were Medical Officers working with the Public Health Department of the State; whereas the petitioners in Writ Petition No.9990 of 2004 were medical teachers in the state owned medical colleges. They have challenged vires of the Government Resolution dated 17.8.2002. It is their case that recommendations of 5th pay commission in principle were accepted by the State. Their pay-scales were revised from 1.1.1996; however, recommendation to revise and pay non-practising allowance payable to Doctors who are in service of the State has been accepted and implemented with effect from 1.10.1998. It is their case that non practising allowance is a component of "pensionable pay" in terms of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 ('Rules' for short). It is their case, that they have retired after January, 1996 but before 1.10.1998 and, therefore, the State decision inter-alia fixing the date for paying non-practising allowance w.e.f. 1.10.1998, is arbitrary. The petitioners, therefore, contended that the G.R. dated 17.8.2002 granting non-practising allowance to medical practitioners @ 25% of the basic pay subject to the condition that the amount of basic pay and non-practising allowances together would not exceed 29,500/- with effect from 1.10.1998 was discriminatory and in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is their case, that since they have retired before 1.10.1998 but after 1.1.1996 they were deprived of non-practising allowance, which otherwise is a component of Pensionable Pay. The Petitioners have been discriminated and singled out by imposing cut-off date 1.10.1998. It is their case that, cut-off date does not certify twin test of reasonable classification and has no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved on the basis of classification.

(2.) The Petitioners in the Writ Petition No.9990 of 2004 would raise same grounds, but had approached the MAT at the first instance by filing an Original Application No.477 of 2000. The Original Application was dismissed by judgment and order dated 20.8.200 The Petitioners in the said writ petition, therefore, also seek same relief as sought in Writ Petition No. 7365 of 2004.

(3.) That in substance, both the petitions, the following reliefs are sought: