Back
2016 Supreme(Pat) 647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.
Dr. Govind Prasad Srivastava, son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Health, Bihar, Patna -Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18697 of 2014
Decided On : 6-4-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwary and Mr. Prahlad Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. K.K. Sinha, Advocate
The principle of equality under Articles 14 and 16 cannot be wrongly construed to apply every circular to every person, considering the diverse backgrounds under which engagements were made.
Headnote:
HONORARIUM - Employment Dispute - Memo No. 2804 dated 29.3.2010, Memo No. 816(2) dated 19.7.2011 - The court discussed the applicability of the resolutions and notifications in relation to the petitioner's engagement as a Dental Surgeon and the principle of equality under Articles 14 and 16. The court found that the petitioner, being a retired personnel, was engaged under different terms compared to the Medical Officers (Dental) hired on a fixed remuneration, and therefore, the resolutions and notifications could not be applied to the petitioner's case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Dental Surgeon, filed a writ application seeking mandamus for payment of honorarium and remuneration for services rendered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the resolutions and notifications regarding honorarium and remuneration for Medical Officers (Dental) could not be applied to the petitioner, who was a retired personnel engaged under different terms.
Issues: Applicability of resolutions and notifications to the petitioner's engagement, entitlement to honorarium and remuneration.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of equality under Articles 14 and 16 cannot be wrongly construed to apply every circular to every person, considering the diverse backgrounds under which engagements were made.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed for lacking merit.
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.
The petitioner, who was working as a Dental Surgeon on honorarium with the State of Bihar and posted at Nawada, has filed the present writ application for a mandamus upon the respondent authorities to pay him Rs. 30,000/- as honorarium w.e.f. the date of issuance of a resolution by the State Government dated 19th July, 2011 (Annexure-6). Since respondent authorities are not willing to extend that benefit and abide by the said resolution, he decided to file the present writ application. He also urges that the right of payment of Rs. 30,000/- as honorarium stands corroborated even by Annexure-7.
2. The alternate prayer also on behalf of the petitioner is to pay him honorarium of Rs. 500/- per day w.e.f. 1.4.2007 to 6.6.2010 which, according to the petitioner, he is legally entitled to for the services rendered by him as it has not been paid till date.
3. The petitioner, who was a Dental Medical Officer, superannuated from the post from Sadar Hospital, Nawada. He was appointed as a Member of the District Consumer Redressal Forum at Nawada. Subsequently, on the basis of a resolution No. 423 dated 17.5.2006, issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, petitioner was selected and engaged as a Dental Surgeon, in the Sadar Hospital, Nawada, on contract basis. He was to get a consolidated fee of Rs. 500/- per day for a maximum of two days in a week. Annexure-1 is the letter of such engagement.
4. The petitioner gave his joining in the Sadar Hospital. He has rendered services and according to him, he was paid his remuneration till March, 2007. From April, 2007 the remuneration has been withheld for no apparent reason.
5. On 1.2.2009 the Executive Director, State Health Society decided to enhance the number of days of working for such Dental Surgeons from two days a week to six days a week. A Notification showing the name of the petitioner also has been brought on record as Annexure-3.
6. It is the petitioner’s stand that pursuant to Annexure-3 he gave his joining on 7.6.2010 and Anneuxre-5 supports that position. Petitioner states that he has been paid his remuneration of Rs. 500/- per day for work of six days per week from 7.6.2010.
7. Subsequently, the Department of Health, Government of Bihar, issued Memo No. 816(2) dated 19.7.2011 by virtue of which the honorarium of Dental Surgeon, working on contract basis, has been raised to 30,000/- per month. The above resolution has been circulated to all Civil Surgeons of Bihar as per the order dated 23.2.2012, issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary of the department. Since the petitioner has not been given the benefit of Annexure-6 and 7, he moved the authorities several times. Since no response came, he filed the present writ application.
8. The Court directed the respondent authorities to file a counter affidavit. First a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 i.e. Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer and the Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Nawada. They take a plea that the petitioner is a retired employee. He was engaged on contract basis on a fixed honorarium. There is a notification relating to such persons, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, which is Memo No. 2804 dated 29.3.2010, which mandates as per Clause 5(ka)(v) that the pension amount would be deducted from the honorarium. Yet another letter No. 4337 dated 23.3.2015 issued by the General Administration Department, has been annexed as Annexure-B, which is supposed to govern such payments and they take a plea that details of pension etc. has been demanded and once it is furnished, respondents will take steps.
9. When such a plea was taken, an I.A. has been filed which is numbered as 7814 of 2015. Petitioner wants quashing of the two resolutions, contained in Annexure-A and B of counter affidavit on the ground that the same cannot apply to the case of the petitioner since he has been en
