D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the following relief, the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner -Union on behalf of its members: (i) For a direction upon the respondent no. 4 to dispose of the representation dated 9.3.2009 as contained in Annexure 11 with a reasoned order; within a stipulated period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court wherein prayer has been made to remove the pay anomaly and grant the pay scale of Rs. 9300 -34800/ - with pay Grade of Rs. 5400/ - in Grade -S -15 since 1.1.2006; but reduced thereafter illegally to the scale of Rs. 9300 -34800/ - with Pay Grade of Rs. 4200/ - in Grade -S -12; (ii) For quashing the recommendation of the Finance Department granting the pay scale of Rs. 9300 -34800/ - with Pay Grade of Rs. 4200/ - in Grade -S -12 for the non existing post of Baidya in place of Ayurvedic Medical Officer as contained in Annexure 6; (iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities to grant the pay scale of Rs. 9300 -34800/ - with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/ - in Grade -S -15 since 1.1.2006 and accordingly the dues thereof. Learned counsel for the State has raised preliminary objection that the writ petition is not tenable at law, because the petitioner has no locus standi and no fundamental right or any other right of the petitioner -Union is violated by the respondents and has relied upon the decisions, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn. & ors., as reported in : (2006) 11 SCC 731(II), Mahinder Kumar Gupta & ors. v. Union of India, as reported in : (1995) 1 SCC 85, the decision, rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Parents Teachers Association and ors. v. Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and ors., as reported in : AIR 2001 Raj 35, Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar & ors. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandai Samiti & anr., as reported in : AIR 1984 All 46. The Goa Judicial Officers' Association v. The State of Goa & ors., as reported in : (1996) 2 Mah. L.R. 9: (1997) 4 Bom. C.R. 372. and has submitted that in the facts of the present case, the petitioner's fundamental right has not been violated at all by the State.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides on this preliminary issue and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the prayer, made in this writ petition, it appears that the petitioner -Union is seeking removal of pay anomaly and grant of pay scale of Rs. 9300 -34800/ - with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/ - in Grade -S -15, since 1.1.2006. Following are the questions of law, which has been raised in this writ petition at paragraph no. 2: (a) Whether it is open for the Finance Department to reduce the pay scale of petitioners Onion, setting aside the recommendation of Jharkhand State FITMENT COMMITTEE which provided the 6th Pay revision in consonance with the 6th Pay Revision of Central Government for all the Doctors i.e. Allopathic, Ayurvedic Unani and Homeopathy vide Chapter -3 Index 3.1.3? (b) Whether the fixation of pay scale @ Rs. 6500 -10500/ - for the non existing post of BAIDYA by the Finance Department is arbitrary, illegal and gross misuse of power as the said scale was itself upgraded in the 5th Pay Revision Commission i.e. Rs. 2200 -4000/ - revised to Rs. 6500 -10500/ vide Letter No. 660 F/2 dated 8th February 1999 and later on vide Letter No. 3589 dated 17.12.2007 said scale was itself upgraded in the scale of Rs. 8000 -13500/ - and after promotion of first A.C.P., the scale of Rs. 10000 -15200/ - has been made ? (c) Whether the Petitioners Union Members who were appointed by the BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (B.P.S.C.) as Ayurvedic Medical Officer can be designated as BAIDYA which stood obviated vide Letter No. 30/Indigenous Medicine/Health, Patna dated 10.1.1981 ? (d) Whether the action of Respondent No. 4 who was supposed to dispose off the representation of Petitioners Union within 4 months in terms of Letter No. 669/F/dated 2.3.2009 can keep the matter pending for one year causing serious loss to them ? (e) Whether the Petitioner's Union is entitled to get the pay scale of Rs. 9300 -34800/ - with pay grade of Rs. 5400/ - in Grade -S -15 since 1.1.2006 the date of recommendation of 6th Pay Revision Commission, Jharkhand and consequently the arrear as well thereupon ?
(3.) IT appears that the petitioner -Union, who has filed the instant writ petition, has not annexed any resolution of its Members to file the instant writ petition and in absence of such authority, this type of writ petition cannot be preferred by the petitioner Union, irrespective of the fact, whether it is registered or not, because if the authority is given to the petitioner -Union by its Members, then it will create estoppel on their part to file another writ petition for the very same relief, if this writ petition, preferred by the present petitioner -Union, is dismissed. No such authority has been given by the members of the petitioner -Union and there is no Annexure to this effect in the memo of writ petition.;