NEELAM GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are being decided by one judgement since common question of law and facts are involved.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners who are doctors were posted in tribal areas. As per scheme Annexure-PA issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh the State had taken a decision to grant accumulated "Special Non-Practising Allowance" of Rs.1.00 lakh for the areas mentioned in Annexure "A-1 and A-II" and Rs.75,000/- in respect of the areas mentioned in Annexure "B-I and B-II" to the notification. This was subject to certain conditions including the condition that the effective services to be rendered in the tribal areas would not be less than three years. This was given as an incentive to the doctors who served in these tribal and hard areas. In fact the scheme envisages the grant of this non practicing allowance on a lump-sum basis and after completion of prescribed tenure of three years. However, it appears that the Government decided to pay this amount in instalments and instalment of Rs.25,000/- was released to each of the petitioners. It appears that none of the two petitioners completed three years normal tenure in the hard area and as such it was directed that this amount of Rs.25,000/- be ordered to be recovered from them.

(3.) One of the allegations made in the petition was that no recovery was made from similarly situated persons. Vide order dated 29th June, 2010 the Secretary (Health) was directed to file an affidavit and affidavit has been filed in which it is admitted that no recovery has been made from the persons mentioned in the petition. It is further stated that their service book are being scrutinized and action shall be taken against them also if recovery is called for. Strictly speaking, the petitioners may not have been entitled to such allowance without completing three years service in hard areas. However, they cannot be discriminated against if such benefit has been given to others. Recovery should be made from all or from none. The State cannot pick and choose the persons from whom the recovery is to be made. Therefore, both the petitions are disposed of with a direction that the impugned order is set-aside and the State if it proposes to make recovery of the advance instalments of "Special Non-Practising Allowance" given to all the doctors posted in the hard areas in terms of the scheme shall issue notices to all such doctors and after issuing such notices take a conscious decision keeping in view the reply filed by the doctors whether such recovery is to be made or not. It is made clear that a uniform policy has to be followed. The petitions are disposed of in the following terms. No order as to costs.