STATE Vs. RAMA NAND
LAWS(J&K)-2000-11-28
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on
November 23,2000
STATE
Appellant
VERSUS
RAMA NAND
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
DHIRENDRA CHAMELI VS. STATE OF UP [REFERRED TO]M.P. SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ABID HUSSAIN AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA DALMIA SHRIYANS PRASAD JAIN JAI DAYAL DALMIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DEOKINANDAN PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
LALJEE DUBEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. JASHODHA NANDAN GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
RANDHIR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
D S NAKARA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
P K RAMACHANDRA IYER DR Y P GUPTA DR T S RAMAN OM PRAKASH KHAUDHURI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
J S RUKMANI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
P SAVITA VS. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUC TION NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
DHIRENDRA CHAMOLI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. R G KASHIKAR [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER SINGH VS. ENGINEER IN CHIEF C P W D [REFERRED TO]
M P SINGH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE C B I VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ABID HUSSAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MACKINNON MACKENZIE AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. AUDREY DCOSTA [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN DASS VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
R D GUPTA VS. LT GOVERNOR DELHI ADMN [REFERRED TO]
DAILY RATED CASUAL LABOUR EMPLOYED UNDER PANDT DEPARTMENT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DELHI MUNICIPAL KARAMCHARI EKTA UNION REG VS. P L SINGH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ALL INDIA SERVICES PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
FEDERATION OF ALL INDIA CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE STENOGRAPHERS RECOGNISED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JAIPAL NIAZ MOHAMMED PREM LATA HAZARI LAL VS. STATUE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
MEWA RAM KANOJIA VS. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES [REFERRED TO]
V MARKENDEYA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE AS SOCIATION SUPREME COURT FOURTH CLASS EM PLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION S P JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWANTI SHARADA SWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
U P RAJYA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
GOPIKARANJAN CHOUDHARY GENERAL SECRETARY OF UNION OF ASSAM RIFLES NON GAZETTED EMPLOYEES NORTH EAST REGION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
O Z HUSSAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PARAS NATH MAMMAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M M R KHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KRISHENA KUMAR BALBIR SINGH DESH RAJ KOHLI R N MUBAYI PRESIDENT ALL INDIA RETIRED RAILWAYMEN P F TERMS ASSOCIATION BRIJ MOHAN KAUL K RAVI VERMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN STATE OF RAJASTHAN UNION OF INDIA VS. GURCHARAN SINGH GREWAL:S S GUPTA:S S GUPTA:G S GREWAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. PRAMOD BHARTIYA [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION SUPREME COURT IV CLASS EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA PRASAD KHUGSAL SURENDRA PRASAD KHUGSAL SURENDRA PRASAD KHUGSAL VS. CHAIRMAN M M T CORPN OF INDIA:DELHI ADMINISTRATION:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THE respondent writ petitioners came to this Court invoking the concept of equal pay for equal work. Their writ petition was allowed.
State has come in appeal.
(2.)THE respondents -Writ petitioners were appointed as Dawasaz. They are looking after the Indian System of Medicine. The administrative department of the respondent writ petitioners is Health and Medical Education Department. It was the case of the writ petitioners that they are working in the farflung rural and urban dispensaries A Dispensary is normally equipped with a Medical Officer described as Vaid, a Dawasaz and also a Nursing Orderly. The presence of Dawasaz is said to be indispensable in every Hospital and Dispensary which is governed by the Indian System of Medicine. The petitioners, as indicated above came to this, Court seeking parity with their counter parts working in the Allopathic Hospitals. Their counter -parts are said to be working as Medical Assistants and Pharmacists. They came to this Court with a plea that the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Dawasaz is Matriculation. They have also to undergo one years compulsory training. For this training, a prescribed syllabus has been indicated. During this training, they have to undergo training in almost all the subjects of Medical Science. Therefore, written examination is taken. Diplomas are awarded by the Directorate of Indian System of Medicines. Visa -vis their post, it was indicated that a Dawasaz has not only to distribute drugs but also dresses the wounds of the patients. This job is done under the supervision of doctors. They are also called upon to inject life saving drugs to the patients through the medium of syringes. As to how the syringes, needles and dressing material is to be kept in a sterilized form, is also one of the duties of the respondents writ -petitioners. They, accordingly sought parity with their counterparts known as Medical Assistants. It was submitted that there is absolutely to treat them differently.
(3.)A learned Single Judge of this Court on the appreciation of the material placed on the file and while taking into consideration the duties which are being performed by Dawasaz looking after the Indian System of Medicine and a Medical Assistant deputed to look after the Allopathic System of Medicine came to the conclusion that the two i.e. Dawasaz and Medical Assistants are performing the same duties. Denial of similar grade to Dawasaz was held as violative of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution.
The principle of equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by our constitution to a fundamental right. This however is not a ground to non -suit the petitioner. When Article 39(d) is read it does indicate the Constitutional aim is that State shall not deny to any citizen equality before law. Equality clause as enshrined in Article 14 of the constitution would become meaningless to a vast majority of people who look forward to the protective umbrella of Article 14, 19 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. The idea is to ensure that the employees with the same status experience and seniority received equal treatment when they are doing similar work.
(2.)THE respondents -Writ petitioners were appointed as Dawasaz. They are looking after the Indian System of Medicine. The administrative department of the respondent writ petitioners is Health and Medical Education Department. It was the case of the writ petitioners that they are working in the farflung rural and urban dispensaries A Dispensary is normally equipped with a Medical Officer described as Vaid, a Dawasaz and also a Nursing Orderly. The presence of Dawasaz is said to be indispensable in every Hospital and Dispensary which is governed by the Indian System of Medicine. The petitioners, as indicated above came to this, Court seeking parity with their counter parts working in the Allopathic Hospitals. Their counter -parts are said to be working as Medical Assistants and Pharmacists. They came to this Court with a plea that the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Dawasaz is Matriculation. They have also to undergo one years compulsory training. For this training, a prescribed syllabus has been indicated. During this training, they have to undergo training in almost all the subjects of Medical Science. Therefore, written examination is taken. Diplomas are awarded by the Directorate of Indian System of Medicines. Visa -vis their post, it was indicated that a Dawasaz has not only to distribute drugs but also dresses the wounds of the patients. This job is done under the supervision of doctors. They are also called upon to inject life saving drugs to the patients through the medium of syringes. As to how the syringes, needles and dressing material is to be kept in a sterilized form, is also one of the duties of the respondents writ -petitioners. They, accordingly sought parity with their counterparts known as Medical Assistants. It was submitted that there is absolutely to treat them differently.
(3.)A learned Single Judge of this Court on the appreciation of the material placed on the file and while taking into consideration the duties which are being performed by Dawasaz looking after the Indian System of Medicine and a Medical Assistant deputed to look after the Allopathic System of Medicine came to the conclusion that the two i.e. Dawasaz and Medical Assistants are performing the same duties. Denial of similar grade to Dawasaz was held as violative of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution.
The principle of equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by our constitution to a fundamental right. This however is not a ground to non -suit the petitioner. When Article 39(d) is read it does indicate the Constitutional aim is that State shall not deny to any citizen equality before law. Equality clause as enshrined in Article 14 of the constitution would become meaningless to a vast majority of people who look forward to the protective umbrella of Article 14, 19 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. The idea is to ensure that the employees with the same status experience and seniority received equal treatment when they are doing similar work.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.