Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

G.SOMASUNDARAN PILLAI versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


G.SOMASUNDARAN PILLAI v. STATE OF KERALA - OP No. 25617 of 1998(Y) [2007] RD-KL 4758 (6 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 25617 of 1998(Y)

1. G.SOMASUNDARAN PILLAI
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD (SR.)

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :06/03/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

O.P.NO. 25617 OF 1998

DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF MARCH, 2007



JUDGMENT

The 1st petitioner is the General Secretary of the Insurance Medical Services Staff Union and the petitioners 2,3 and 4 are Insurance Medical Officers Gr.II (Ayurveda) and Insurance Medical Officers Gr.II (Homoeo) in the Insurance Medical Services Department of the Government of Kerala. They are, in this original petition voicing a grievance of discrimination between the Assistant Insurance Medical Officers(Allopathy) on the one hand and the Assistant Medical Officers (Ayurveda & Homoeo) on the other hand, in the matter of granting of 10 years' and 20 years' higher grade for Assistant Insurance Medical officers. The petitioners would contend that there is parity in scale of pay at the time of entry into service for the Assistant Medical Officers (Allopahty) and Asst. Medical Officers (Ayurveda & Homoeo) and therefore the refusal to grant them 10 years' and 20 years' higher grade as applicable to the Asst. Medical Officers (Allopathy) is arbitrary and discriminatory. Their representations in this regard, Ext.P4 has been rejected by Ext.P5 order on the ground that there is vast difference among the three systems of medicine and fundamental difference in the curriculum and qualification. The petitioners are O.P.No.25617/98 2 challenging Ext.P5 order in this original petition and also seek a consequential relief for a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of grade promotion to Asst. Medical Officers (Homoeo) and Asst. Medical Officers (Ayurveda) as in the case of the Asst. Medical Officers (Allopahty).

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government pleader. Although no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, the Government pleader would support Ext.P5 order on the reasons mentioned therein. No doubt, the three systems of medicine have difference curriculum but now- a- days, the basic qualification for admission to the degree courses for all the three systems of medicine is the same. Admittedly, the scales of pay at the time of entry into service of Insurance Medical Officers in all the three systems is the same. In fact the Insurance Medical Officers have better avenues of promotion as Deputy Director and Director, which are not available to Asst. Insurance Medical Officers (Homoeo & Ayurveda). Since granting of higher grades is especially for the purpose of giving some relief to those employees, who have been stagnating in the same scale of pay for years together, I am of opinion that the attitude of the Government in Ext.P5 order is certainly arbitrary and discriminatory. In this connection, it is also to be noted that in the Homoeo Medical Department and the Ayurveda Medical Department, Medical Officers O.P.No.25617/98 3 do get higher grades on completion of 10 years' and 20 years' like other Government servants. When all other Government servants also do get this 10 years' and 20 years' higher grades, I am at a loss to understand why Asst. Insurance Medical Officer (Homoe & Ayurveda) alone should be treated differently. As such the petitioners have made out a very good case for consideration of their claim for granting of higher grades like any other Government servants, particularly Asst. Insurance Medical Officer (Allopathy).

3. In this connection I note that the designation of Asst. Insurance Medical Officers in Insurance Medical Services Department has been changed. In any event, in the above circumstances, I am not satisfied that Ext.P5 order is sustainable. Accordingly the same is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of observations made herein before and pass fresh orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd O.P.No.25617/98 4


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.