By the Court.—We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. With the consent of the parties’ counsel, we proceed to decide both the writ petitions finally at admission stage.

2. The petitioners were appointed as Medical Officer (Ayurved) under Employees State Insurance Scheme (in short hereinafter referred as the Scheme) and resumed duties in the different hospitals at Ghaziabad and Kanpur.

3. According to petitioner’s counsel apart from regular monthly salary they were being paid non-practicing allowance every month in lieu of certificate provided by them to the effect that they have not been indulged into private practice.

4. Controversy arose on account of letter dated 30.7.1991 sent to the State Government seeking clarification with regard to payment of non-practicing allowance to Ayurvedic/Homeopathy Medical Officers under the scheme. The Government by an order dated 31.3.1992 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) opined that there is no justification to pay non-practicing allowance to Ayurvedic/Homeopathy Medical Officers working under the Scheme in the State of U.P.

5. Feeling aggrieved with the decision of the State Government the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby initially an interim order was passed for payment of non-practicing allowance. However, writ petition decided finally by judgment and order dated 12.7.2006 permitting the petitioner to prefer representation to the State Government and State Government was directed to decide the same. The State Government by impugned order dated 12.3.2010 had rejected the representation. It may be noted that the Government order dated 24.8.2009 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) specify the rate of payment of non-practicing allowance to the Medical Officer of Medical and Health Department.

6. While assailing the impugned order it has been submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that reliance placed by the State Government on Rule 15 (e) of The Employees’ State Insurance (Medical Benefit) Rules, 1953 (in short hereinafter referred as 1953 Rules) is an incident of misleading of the rule. The submission is that the State Government had failed to appreciate the rules in its real perspective. The entire case of the petitioner hinges on interpretation of Rule 15. It shall be appropriate to reproduce Rule 15 of 1953 Rules in its totality as under :

“15. Provision of alternative arrangements

Where there is not an adequate number of Insurance Medical Practitioners available within a reasonable distance the State Government shall provide general medical services to insured person either :

(a) by setting up State Insurance Dispensaries for the treatment of insured persons, staffed by fulltime or part-time Insurance Medical Officer;

(b) by making suitable arrangements for a mobile dispensary to visit a central spot near the places of residence of insured persons ;

(c) An Insurance Medical Officer shall receive such allowances and at such rates as may be sanctioned from time to time for medical officers of the State Government on similar grades in the localities in which they are stationed. An Insurance Medical Officer shall be entitled to leave and leave salary under the leave rules may, from time to time, be applicable to other similar State Government servants on similar salaries.

(d) An Insurance Medical Officer shall be entitled to travelling allowance for journeys performed on official duties on the scale laid down in the State Government rules applicable to medical officers of the State Government on similar salaries.

(e) A full-time Insurance Medical Officer shall not undertake private practice.

(f) An Insurance Medical Officer shall be subject to such other conditions of service as ma be fixed by the State Government, in consultation with the Corporation.

(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (b) to (e), the pay, allowance and other conditions of service of