Allowed

Afak Anwar Mandaviya v. Maharashtra Association of Resident Doctors(Mard) and 8 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Apr 2013PIL/47/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL petition sought a direction to the Maharashtra Association of Resident Doctors to withdraw their strike call and for the Government to implement essential services maintenance laws. The Court found that the Government had addressed the doctors' demands, including a hike in stipend, and thus had no reason to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 (Maharashtra Association of Resident Doctors) to withdraw the call for strike/mass bunking.

Afak Anwar Mandaviya Vs Maharashtra Association of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

kambli

PIL(L)-7-13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO.7 OF 2013

¶7

… Mr.Afak Anwar Mandaviya ...Petitioner v/s. Maharashtra Association of Resident Doctors and ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Datta Mane for the petitioner. Ms.Sharmila Modle for respondents Nos. 2 , 3 and 9. Mr.S.C.Daswadikar for respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr.D.J.Khambatta, Advocate General with Ms.Geeta Shastri, AGP for respondents Nos. 4 to 8.

¶10

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SANKLECHA, J. DATE : 24 April 2013

¶11

P.C.

¶12

In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, filed by way of public interest litigation, public spirited citizen prayed for a direction to respondent No.1-Maharashtra Association of Resident Doctors (MARD) to take back their strike/ mass bunking planned on 31 January 2013 and thereafter, so that poor and needy patients in need of medical services do not suffer. In the petition, it is also prayed for a direction to respondents-authorities to implement Maharashtra Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2011, if the doctors do not take back strike/ mass bunking.

1 of 4

kambli 2

PIL(L)-7-13

Notice was issued on 30 January 2013 and was made returnable on 31 January 2013. On 31 January 2013, this Court recorded the statement of the learned AGP and learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation that grievances made by the Maharashtra Association of Resident Doctors were being looked into and that some time may be given to authorities to inform the Court about the steps being taken by respondents-authorities.

¶17

In view of the above, the representatives of respondent No.1-Association present before the Court stated that the Association had decided to withdraw the call for mass bunking.

¶18

The petition, thereafter, came up for hearing on 11 March 2013, when the learned Advocate General placed on record the information about the demands of the Association and action being taken by the Government of Maharashtra. The information sheet signed by the Director of Medical Education & Research was taken on record. Upon perusal of the said information sheet, it appeared that the major issue pending was about the demand for hike in stipend. Hence, hearing was adjourned to enable the State Government to consider the demand of the Resident Doctors for hike in stipend.

¶19

Today, learned Advocate General has placed on record another information sheet signed by the Director of Medical Education & Research showing action taken by the State Government in respect of all 13 demands of the Resident Doctors, including the demand for hike in stipend. Learned Advocate General states, on the basis of the said information, that at present the Junior Resident Doctors are getting stipend at the rate of Rs.31,186/- per month and that the Government

2 of 4

kambli 3

PIL(L)-7-13

has decided to increase the stipend to Rs.36,186/- per month. Thus, hike of Rs.5,000/- per month straightway. However, it appears that the Resident Doctors are demanding hike of Rs.10,000/- per month i.e. Rs.41,888/-.

¶24

Learned Advocate General has also placed on record another statement indicating stipends being paid to post-graduate students in other States, which ranges from Rs.15,600/- per month to 1^st Year Resident Doctor in Chandigarh to Rs.25,000/- per month to 1^st Year Resident Doctor in Karnataka. It appears that it is only in Delhi that the stipend being paid to the Resident Doctor at the rate of Rs.52,000/- per month.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Association and learned Advocate General for respondent No.3-State Government, we are of the prima facie view that the the State Government has looked into demands of respondent No.1-Association and taken necessary steps for redressal of their grievances. As regards the question, whether the stipend being paid to the Resident Doctors should be “X” or “Y” amount, this Court would not sit in appeal over the administrative decision of the State Government, but the very fact that the State Government has given the Resident Doctors hike of Rs.5000/- per month in the stipend and increased it to Rs.36,186/- per month, which is more than the stipend being paid to the Resident Doctors in any other State, except Delhi, we are inclined to give a direction to respondent No.1-Association to withdraw the call for strike/ mass bunking and further record the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State Government

3 of 4

kambli

PIL(L)-7-13

will take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶31

The petition is , accordingly disposed of in terms of the above directions.

¶32

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶33

(M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)

¶34

4 of 4

Afak Anwar Mandaviya v. Maharashtra Association of Resident Doctors(Mard) and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afak Anwar Mandaviya v. Maharashtra Association of Resident Doctors(Mard) and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan S/O Govind Dhoble Vs Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra Ministry of City Development, Mumbai and 5 Others

Save Open Spaces and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Smt. Alka W/O Shri Manoj Kakade and Ors. Vs the National Highway Authority of India Thr. Its Chairman and Ors.

Citizen Forum for Equality, a Registered Ngo, Thr. Its President Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Chief Minister and Ors.

Bhujangrao Shripati Vetal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shaikh Hilaluddin Chotumiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Syed Saleem Syed Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Shree Sanatan Dharam Education Society and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 24 Ors.

Kantarani Somnath Saraswat Vs Gayatri Sanjeev Kumar Saraswat and 2 Ors.

Annete Bulchandani Vs Mrs Iris Fernandes and 13 Ors.

Salonie Arora and 2 Ors. Vs Madhurani S. Sehgal and 2 Ors.

Vasant Ganu Patil Vs the Chancellor, University of Mumbai and 7 Ors.

Pournima Liladhar Choudhari Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation

Uday Pyraocables Pvt. Ltd. Vs Fact Eng. and Design Organ.