JUDGMENT (ORAL)

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

The issue

1. The petitioner, who was occupying the post of Advisor (Nutrition) in the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, sought parity of pay with the posts of Advisor (Ayurveda) and Advisor (Homeopathy). The Central Administrative Tribunal, (“the Tribunal”, hereinafter) has, by judgment dated 7 October 2016 render in OA 3216/2011, rejected his claim.

2. The petitioner is before us, challenging the said decision.

3. As such, the only issue in consideration is whether the post of Advisor (Nutrition) is entitled to parity of pay with the post of Advisor (Ayurveda) and Advisor (Homeopathy).

4. We have heard Mr. V. Shashank Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, at length.

5. Before adverting to Mr. Shashank Kumar’s submissions, we may note that the issue of whether the post of Advisor (Nutrition) was entitled to pay parity with the posts of Advisor (Ayurveda) and Advisor (Homeopathy), was addressed by the 5th Central Pay Commission, (“5th CPC”, hereinafter), which returned a recommendation against the petitioner and recommended that the post of Advisor (Nutrition) be placed in the scale of ₹ 4500-5700, of which the replacement scale was ₹ 14300-18300/-. There is no dispute that this scale has been paid to the petitioner.

6. Mr. V. Shashank Kumar’s first submission is predicated on the following noting, entered by the Deputy Directorate General (P) on the file:

“The matter relates to upgrade the pay scale of Advisor (Nutrition) under this Directorate in respect of his representation to the 5th Pay Commission which has asked our comments for the same. The Department of Health has also requested our comments so that the same may be sent to the 5th Pay Commission.

In this connection, it may be mentioned that Adviser (Nutrition) is the Programme Officer of National Iodine Deficiency, Disorders Control Programme (NIDDCP) and a new Programme entitled National Programme for Miconutrient Malnutrition is also likely to start very soon under him. This is an important and sensitive post with very high technical

responsibilities and the facts made in the representation seem to be true and requires appropriate action for the same. It will be more appropriate to recommend to the 5th Pay Commission to upgrade the pay scale of the post of Adviser (Nutrition) in the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) equivalent to Adviser (Nutrition) in the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) equivalent to Adviser (Homeopathy)/Adviser(Ayurveda) of the Ministry of Health and F.W. or in the scale of Advisers in the Ministry of Science and Technology/Planning Commission etc.

In view of the above, D.G. may kindly see before it is sent to the Department of Health for further action.

Submitted for kind approval of D.G.

Sd/-

2/2/93

DR. A.K.Kundu

DDG(P)”

7. It is settled law that a file noting confers no right to a party. The Supreme Court has pronounced on this aspect in Bachhittar Singh v State of Punjab, (AIR 1963 SC 395), State of Punjab v Aman Singh Harika, (AIR 1966 SC 1313), Nareshbhai Bhagubhai v UOI, ((2019) 15 SCC 1), Sethi Auto Service Station v DDA, ((2009) 1 SCC 180), Shanti Sports Club v UOI, ((2009) 15 SCC 705), and a catena of other judgments. Rights ensure, in favour of the citizen, only following communication of the decision to her, or him.

8. Besides, the aforesaid file noting was a noting which was entered before the matter was referred to the 5th CPC. Thereafter, the 5th CPC has considered the aspect and has not chosen to recommend pay parity of the post of Advisor (Nutrition) with the posts of Advisor (Ayurveda) and Advisor (Homeopathy).

9. The Supreme Court has, in case after case, held that the arena of pay fixation is one into which courts should rarely, if at all, venture. Such matters, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised, fall within the province of expert bodies such as the Pay Commission., (UOI v P.V. Hariharan, (1997) 3 SCC 568 and UOI v M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421)