USHA SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the matter, the above cases were heard analogously together and a common order is being passed. The facts of W.P. No. 3334/2009(s) are being narrated as under: The petitioner before this Court an employee of Employees State Insurance Services has filed the present petition claiming the pay scale at par with the doctors working in the Public Health and Family Welfare Department. The contention of the petitioner is that she was recruited as Assistant Surgeon on 3.5.79 in the Employees State Insurance Services and prior to 1978 the Employees State Insurance Services was a part of Public Health Department. The contention of the petitioner is that the initial qualifications for appointment of a doctor under the Public Health and Family Welfare Department and under the Employees State Insurance Services (Labour Department) are the same and, therefore, they are entitled for the same pay scale, which is being given to the doctors serving the Public Health and Family Welfare Department.

(2.) Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1941/92 in the case of A.K. Singhal Vs. State of M.P. and Others, wherein an Assistant Surgeon working under the E.S.I. Department was claiming senior scale as well as selection grade at par with the doctors serving the Public Health and Family Welfare Department. His contention is that the Original Application was allowed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal and the Civil Appeal preferred before the Apex Court by the State of Madhya Pradesh was dismissed i.e. Civil Appeal No. 10868/96, State of M.P. & Others Vs. Dr. A.K. Singhal. The Contention of learned Sr. Counsel is that the Administrative Tribunal as well as Apex Court after comparing the service conditions have allowed the claim of the doctors therein and based upon the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner is entitled for the same pay scale, which is being paid to the doctors serving the Public Health and Family Welfare Department. He has also relied upon an order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 9142/2003 dated 28.4.2004 in case of a dental surgeon serving the Employees State Insurance Services, who was also claiming selection grade and senior scale. The contention of learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for the same pay scale, which is being paid to the doctors of Public Health and Family Welfare Department.

(3.) A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents and the stands of the respondents is that the doctors serving Employees State Insurance Services are member of Labour Department and 87.5% of the financial burden is taken care of by the Employees State Insurance Services, New Delhi and rest of 12.5% financial burden is taken care of by the State Government. It has also been stated that the duties and responsibilities of doctor serving to the department i.e. the Employees State Insurance Services and the Public Health and Family Welfare Department are different and cannot be compared. It has also been stated that the doctors serving the Employees State Insurance Services are being paid non-practicing allowance and there is no provision for medico legal cases for doctors serving the Employees State Insurance Services. The respondents have further stated that the working conditions of the doctors in two different departments are altogether different. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.