SHAMBHU DATT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order passed by the respondents as contained in Annexure P/10 dated 20.11.2009, rejecting the claim of the petitioner in the matter of fixation of his pay in the pay scale `1820- 3000/- and refusing to grant similar benefit to the petitioner as has been granted to one Dr. Krishna Dutta Bhatele, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) FACTS, in brief, indicate that petitioner was initially appointed as a Vaidya in Ayurved Dispensary, Mahragaon, District Narsinghpur by the Janpad Sabha, Gadarwara vide order-dated 26.8.1965. In the year 1987, his services were taken over by Janpad Panchayat, Narsinghpur. Vide notification Annexure P/1 issued on 1.6.1967 certain classifications of Vaidya Grade I was made and according to the petitioner he was also classified as a Vaidya Grade I. In the year 1988, the entire dispensary was taken over by the Government and vide order-dated 30.3.1988, 154 Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari were merged in the services of the State Government vide order Annexure P/2. Petitioner was also one such person whose services were taken over by the State Government. According to the petitioner after taking over of the services of the petitioner by the State Government, petitioner was entitled to be granted the post of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari in the pay 1820-3000/-. Instead, all the persons similarly situated like the petitioner were absorbed in the cadre of Assistant Ayurved Chikitsa Officer, in the pay scale 1150-1800/-. Because of the aforesaid, various petitions were filed before the MP Administrative Tribunal and by a common order passed on 7.5.1997, all the petitions were allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the State Government before the High Court in W.P.No.5276/1997 and the writ petition was disposed of vide order- dated 1.7.1999 partly allowing the claim of the State Government. The High Court directed that after taking note of the qualifications laid down in the Notification dated 1.6.1967 Annexure P/1, a scheme be framed for absorption of Vaidya's keeping in view the principle laid down for appointment/absorption as Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, through direct recruitment and by promotion. All the cases were to be considered afresh. In compliance to the order passed by this Court on 1.7.1999, the State Government constituted a Screening Committee on 25.2.2000 and the Committee submitted its report on 20.2.2001, after submission of report by the Committee, respondents issued orders on 3.5.2001, whereby some Assistant Ayurveda Officers were directed to be absorbed as Ayurveda Medical Officers, but the name of the petitioner and that of Dr. Krishan Dutta Bhatele was not included in such list, even though petitioner and Dr. Krishan Dutta Bhatele alongwith many others possessed the requisite qualification as laid down in the circular dated 1.6.1967 Annexure P/1 to be appointed/absorbed as Ayurveda Medical Officers. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, it is stated that Dr. Krishan Dutta Bhatele and many others filed Writ Petitions and in the case of Dr. Krishan Dutta Bhatele, a Bench of this Court passed order-dated 5.5.2006, in W.P.No.17994/2003, vide Annexure P/5. In pursuance to the said order, Dr. Krishan Dutta Bhatele has been granted absorption retrospectively in the cadre of Ayurveda Chikitsa Adhikari in the pay scale 1800-3300/-. It is the case of the petitioner that as Dr. Krishan Dutta Bhatele was junior to the petitioner and petitioner was also identically situated, he also approached this Court and in Writ Petition No.4244/2008(s), vide order-dated 12.5.2009, respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the decision rendered in the case of Dr. Krishan Dutta Bhatele and take a decision. The State Government having rejected the claim by the impugned order-dated 20.11.2009 Annexure P/10, petitioner is again before this Court assailing the action.

(3.) THAT apart, Shri Ghildiyal points out that all such persons, who are Ayurveda Ratna with Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag Certificate have been absorbed in the cadre of Ayurveda Medical Officers and in the case of the petitioner only a discriminatory attitude is being followed. Accordingly, Shri Ghildiyal submits that the case of the petitioner has not been considered properly and, therefore, the action impugned be quashed.