Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR, J.
Shiv Pratap Maurya And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health - Respondent
Writ A. No. 1453 Of 2014, Writ A. No. 3407 of 2013, Writ A. No. 3792 of 2013, Writ A. No. 4184 of 2013, Writ A. No. 5647 of 2013, Writ A. No. 5895 of 2013, Writ A. No. 6297 of 2013, Writ A. No. 6331 of 2013, Writ A. No. 6378 of 2013, Writ A. No. 6503 of 2013, Writ A. No. 6530 of 2013, Writ A. No. 6843 of 2013, Writ A. No. 6898 of 2013, Writ A. No. 7134 of 2013, Writ A. No. 1658 of 2014, Writ A. No. 1775 of 2014, Writ A. No. 1812 of 2014, Writ A. No. 1827 of 2014, Writ A. No. 1848 of 2014, Writ A. No. 1894 of 2014, Writ A. No. 1947 of 2014, Writ A. No. 1981 of 2014, Writ A. No. 2003 of 2014, Writ A. No. 2122 of 2014, Writ A. No. 2266 of 2014, Writ A. No. 2399 of 2014, Writ A. No. 3684 of 2014, Writ A. No. 4527 of 2014, Writ A. No. 5482 of 2014, Writ A. No. 5624 of 2014, Writ A. No. 6419 of 2014, Writ A. No. 6640 of 2014, Writ A. No. 6755 of 2014, Writ A. No. 7356 of 2014, Writ A. No. 7638 of 2014, Writ A. No. 1643 of 2015, Writ A. No. 2066 of 2015, Writ A. No. 3144 of 2015, Writ A. No. 4711 of 2015, Writ A. No. 533 of 2016.
Decided On : 20-03-2024
MPHW (Male) - National Rural Health Mission Scheme - Guidelines, 2010 - Clause 3.1, 3.3 - The court discussed the implementation of the National Rural Health Mission Scheme and the Guidelines, 2010, which provided for the engagement of MPHW (Male) for a period of three years with financial assistance from the Government of India and the State Government. The court emphasized the obligation of the State Government to ensure the payment of salaries to the petitioners for the period they had worked, as per the provisions of the Guidelines, 2010.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male) under the National Rural Health Mission Scheme for a period of three years. The dispute arose regarding the continuation of their services and payment of salaries beyond the initial three-year period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were entitled to continue their services and receive payment as per the Guidelines, 2010. It held that the State Government was obligated to ensure the payment of salaries to the petitioners for the period they had worked, in accordance with the provisions of the Guidelines, 2010.
Issues: The key issues involved the interpretation of the National Rural Health Mission Scheme and the Guidelines, 2010, and the obligation of the State Government to make payments to the petitioners beyond the initial three-year period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Clause 3.1 and 3.3 of the Guidelines, 2010 to establish the obligation of the State Government to ensure the payment of salaries to the petitioners for the period they had worked, and emphasized the prohibition of begar under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the State Government to ensure the payment of salaries to the petitioners for the period they had worked, as per the provisions of the Guidelines, 2010.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vidhu Bhushan Kalia, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mahendra Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the Union of India, Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by learned Standing Counsel and Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the National Health Mission.
2. Since in all the petitions same issue & controversy is involved, so they have been heard together and decided by this common judgment.
3. All the writ petitions are having almost the identical prayers and it would be difficult to mention the prayers of all the petitions but for convenience, the prayer made in the leading petition No. 1453 of 2014 (Shiv Pratap Maurya and 667 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) are being quoted hereinbelow:-
ii) to issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned orders dated 22.11.2013, 11.12.2013 and 26.02.2014 issued by the Respondent no.-3, 7 and 4 respectively, so far as the same provides approval of services of the petitioners till 31.03.2014 and also to the extent the same provides salary/honorarium to Multipurpose Workers only upto 31.03.2014 (as are contained in Annexure No. 1, Annexure no. 2 and Annexure No. 3 respectively to this writ petition) and other consequential orders if any.
iii) to issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue on the post of MPWs/MPHW till the continuation of the National Rural Health Mission Scheme and other related schemes launched by the Government of India and to pay them their salary/honorarium as and when the same accrues alongwith their arrears;
iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to fill up the posts of Health Worker (Male) after initiating the regular process of selection for appointment as per the Service Rules, 1997 as amended in the year 1998 and provide preference to the petitioners in appointment and during training on account of their length of service and the nature of job and duties being same after granting required age relaxation in accordance with relevant rules and Government Order;"
4. Appointments were given to the petitioners on different dates between the period from October, 2012 till March, 2013 on the post of Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male) (hereinafter referred to as, the M.P. H.W. (Male) for a period of three years under the scheme namely National Rural Health Mission (hereinafter referred to as, the N.R.H.M.) floated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.
5. Government of India had also issued guidelines for M.P. H.W. (Male) namely, Guidelines for Multipurpose Health Worker (Male), 2010, (hereinafter referred to as, the Guidelines, 2010) wherein clause 3.1 provides for engagement of M.P. H.W. (Male) for a period of three years.
6. In pursuance of the Guidelines, 2010 the Mission Director, N.R.H.M. vide its letter dated 05.09.2012 had directed all the District Magistrates/Chief Medical Officers of State of U.P. for appointment of MPHW (Male) as per the scheme floated by the Government of India and in pursuance thereof, all the petitioners were given appointment.
7. On 22.11.2013, the Director, N.R.H.M. issued a letter addressed to
AI
The central legal principle established in the judgment is the obligation of the State Government to ensure the payment of salaries to the petitioners for the period they had worked, as per the provi....
The court emphasized that the Petitioners cannot claim a right for permanent absorption in the post of Health Inspector Grade II and that the court cannot issue immediate directions for inclusion of ....
The principle of equality before the law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of irrelevant factors, the principle of reasonableness, which requires that government action be based on rationa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that equals are required to be treated equally, and dissimilar treatment to the same class of people is not permissible. The judgment emphasizes th....
Equals are required to be treated equally, and dissimilar treatment cannot be accorded to the same class of people.
Contractual employees have no vested right to continuation of service beyond the agreed term, and the court cannot compel an employer to extend such contracts.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
