DALER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE counsel for the petitioners seeks for adjournment. This case is one of the 20 cases posted today for final hearing, half of which pertain to the year 1992 and in none of the cases, any counsel is ready. In these times when there is large pendency of cases and the public ire against the Courts' inability to dispose of cases is mounting, it is an unsavory spectacle in every Court that Civil Writ Petition No.1020 of 1992 (O&M) -2- there is either a reluctance of the lawyers to carry on with cases or give excuses why they cannot be ready. While all anxiety and vigour is shown for securing interim orders, there is a complete lackadaisical approach to their own briefs when the cases that have been filed more than 2 decades back are taken up for disposal. It is a recurrent theme in our Courts where Presiding Officers see empty halls when the final hearing cases are being taken up. I am afraid, I cannot accommodate a plea for whatever justification that the petitioner has to give. A justification today is that papers are missing and he has to search for it. List of cases that are ripe for final hearing are serialized and communicated to the bar association, every time when a new roster is announced. This roster was circulated in January 2012. THE case that is specifically listed has been onboard since 02.01.2012. THE case was called in the afternoon session and even if the personal case papers are missing, nothing prevented, the counsel to seek for permission from the Court to inspect the file in the morning session itself. I will, therefore, observe that being not ready is an irresponsible and a dereliction. I decline his plea for an adjournment and proceed to dispose off the case on the basis of records available before me.

(2.) THE petitioners are doctors working in various rural areas, who had been drawing rural health allowances. This allowance was being paid in addition to the house rent allowance that they were drawing. THE payment of rural health allowance was Civil Writ Petition No.1020 of 1992 (O&M) -3- stopped for months commencing from October 1988 payable from November 1988 on the ground that in terms of audit objection, it was shown that a doctor, who was drawing a house rent allowance, cannot also avail of a rural health allowance. THE petitioners would rely on the representations given by them pointing out to the fact that house rent allowance was payable to all SHCs and PHCs that fall within 8 kilometers of the entry limits of the nearby A-class cities and rural health allowance was payable to all doctors working in rural areas as an incentive since 1959. THE doctors working in those SHCs and PHCs in Dera Bassi situate in the rural areas having gram panchayats as local bodies were also entitled to rural health allowance.

(3.) IN defence, the Government would state that such of doctors working in SHCs and PHCs which fall within the 8 kilometers of A-class cities were getting rural allowance, without factoring the situation that the persons, who had been actually working in a rural areas, being within 8 kilometers of A-class city Civil Writ Petition No.1020 of 1992 (O&M) -4- were actually receiving the house rent allowance also and hence, the provision for rural health allowance also would be impermissible. If the State in its policy found that the person, who was working in the rural health centre that fall within 8 kilometers radius of a A- class city, could not double his benefit by claiming the house rent allowance as well as the rural health allowance, I would find the decision to be sufficiently well reasoned and there is no arbitrariness about such a decision.