DR. BRAHAM DUTT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner passed his diploma in Indian Medicine and Surgery from Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine, Delhi and thereafter passed 1-1/2 years condensed course. After passing the aforementioned two courses, petitioner was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Indian Medicine and Surgery (for short B.I.M.S.). Petitioner was appointed as Vaidya by the respondents which post was later on designated as Ayurvedic Medical Officer (for short referred to A.M.O.). Service of Vaidya/A.M.O. is governed by statutory rules called The Punjab Ayurvedic Department (Class-III-Technical) Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 6 of the abovesaid rules is reproduced below :-

(2.) The qualification possessed by the petitioner finds mention at item No. 7 of Annexure I appended to the rules, referred to in the earlier portion of this judgment. With effect from 1.2.1981, the pay scales of Vaidya/A.M.O. were revised from Rs. 380-600 to Rs. 700-1400 and it was also decided that benefit of two advance increments shall be granted for B.A.M.S./G.A.M.S. degree holders. In Annexure I to the Rules, degree of G.A.M.S. finds mention which was later on re-designated as B.A.M.S. Petitioner who had passed his B.I.M.S. from Examining Body, Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine and which was equivalent to B.A.M.S./G.A.M.S. and, therefore, Chief Medical Officer granted the benefit of two advance increments to the petitioner although the qualification B.I.M.S. was not mentioned in the letter vide which benefit of two advance increments had been granted to B.A.M.S./G.A.M.S. degree holders. The benefit of two advance increments continued to be extended to the petition upto 28.2.1984. Vide Annexure P/5 dated 15.12.1986, State of Haryana, issued a show cause notice stating therein that the benefit of two advance increments was admissible only to those Ayurvedic Medicine Officers possessing the qualification of B.A.M.S./G.A.M.S. but Chief Medical Officer, Bhiwani, had granted the petitioner the benefit of two advance increments with effect from 1.4.1981 to 28.2.1984 which was contrary to the instructions because the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications of B.A.M.S./G.A.M.S. therefore, recovery of Rs. 9951.80 which was received by the petitioner in excess was sought to be effected. Petitioner filed his reply wherein he stated that he was qualified graduate Doctor and passed his B.I.M.S. from Examining Body, Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine, Delhi and the said qualification was equivalent to B.A.M.S./G.A.M.S. and is treated as such for entering into service and, therefore, petitioner could not be discriminated against only because the expression to his qualification was given as B.I.M.S. and not B.A.M.S./G.A.M.S. although essentially both these qualifications were equivalent to each other in all respects and were being treated as such by the respondents. Petitioner's case was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 13.5.1987 (Annexure P/7) without even adverting to the contentions raised in the petition. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming three reliefs i.e. (i) quashing of the order dated 13.5.1987 Annexure P/7, (ii) petitioner had been wrongly denied the benefit of crossing of efficiency bar which relief has now been granted to the petitioner and is no longer under challenge in this writ petition, and (iii) that persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted as District Ayurvedic Officers whereas the petitioner had been denied promotion to the post of District Ayurvedic Officer.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.