Allowed

N.Muthulakshmi v. The Union of India

Madras HC9 Oct 2018WP/14430/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioners, DNB trainees at Southern Railway HQ Hospital, sought direction to pay them salary equivalent to Junior Residents rather than reduced stipends. The single bench held treating them as Junior Residents is mandatory, reduced stipends constitute unlawful discrimination, and the Ministry must fix appropriate stipends.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay salary/stipend treating petitioners as Junior Resident Doctors and instructing the Ministry to fix appropriate stipend.

N.Muthulakshmi Vs The Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.10.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.Nos. 14430 & 18121 of 2018 in W.M.P. Nos.16454,17045,21407 & 21408 of 2018

¶6

N. Muthulakshmi

¶7

Simna Rajan,

¶8

Saranya K.S,

¶9

K. Nivitha,

¶10

Noor Mohamed Mohamed Eliyas,

¶11

Palyam Venkata Krishna, 7. R. Nithya,

¶12

Hajira Fathima,

¶13

Sneha

¶14

Basani Sai Viksheth Raj

¶15

S. Saravanan

¶16

Rajasekar

¶17

Dinesh .M

¶18

A. Sudharsan

¶19

Ranjeeth Kumar Jadhav

¶20

Kethavath Rajender 17. Maheshnee Gullapalli 18. P. Sulochana 19. T. Manoj 20. P. Vinodhini

¶21

Bijay Kumar Sahu

¶22

R. Ashok Kumar

¶23

S. Arun

¶24

Thabish Syed

¶25

Ahir Dilip Lakhabhai

¶26

V.K. Sanjeev

¶27

Thirunavukkarasu P

¶28

Ramya Rajendran

¶29

Reegan Jose .M 30. Divya .R 31. E. Arthi 32. T. Sandravelu

¶30

DNB Students, Southern Railway Head Quarters Hospital, Aynavaram, Perambur, Chennai -23. ...Petitioners in W.P.No.14430/2018

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

S. Nakkeeran

¶33

Koila Thirupati

¶34

Chandan Kumar Marndi

¶35

Labara Vijay Kumar

¶36

Blesso Nezer E

¶37

G. Shanthi

¶38

B. Hemasree

¶39

DNB Students,

¶40

Southern Railway Head Quarters Hospital, Aynavaram, Perambur, Chennai -23. ...Petitioners in W.P.No.18121/2018 Vs. 1.The Union of India Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶41

The Director National Board of Examinations (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India) NAMS Building Ansari Nagar, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110 029. 3. The Chairman Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 4. The Deputy Director (Health) Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶42

General Manager Southern Railway, Moore Market Complex, Chennai - 600 003.

¶43

The Chief Medical Director Southern Railway, Moore Market Complex, Chennai - 600 003.

¶44

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶45

The Medical Director Southern Railway Head Quarters Hospital, Aynavaram, Perambur,

¶46

Chennai - 23.

¶47

The Additional Chief Health Director

¶48

& DNB Coordinator, Southern Railway Head Quarters Hospital, Aynavaram, Perambur, Chennai - 23.

¶49

..Respondents in both Wps.

¶50

Common Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1,3 to 8 to pay salary/stipend to the petitioners from the date of their joining DNB Course in the Southern Railway Head Quarters Hospital, Aynavaram, Perambur, Chennai - 23 treating them as Junior Resident Doctors.

¶51

For Petitioner in both Wps : Mr. Selvaraj for M/s. D. Jayasingh

¶52

For RR 1 in WP.14430 of 2018 : Mr. G. Karthikeyan For RR 1 in WP.18121 of 2018 : Mr. J. Madana Gopal Rao For RR 2 in both WPs : Mr. Dhruva For RR 3 to 8 in both Wps : Mr. P. T. Ramkumar

¶53

COMMON ORDER

¶54

These Writ Petitions are filed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1, 3 to 8 to pay Salary/stipend to the petitioner from the date of joining DNB Course in the Southern Railway Head Quarters Hospital, Ayanavaram, Perambur, Chennai - 23 treating them as Junior Resident Doctors.

¶55

The petitioner has come forward with these writ petitions with the following facts in the affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India established the National Board of Examinations (NBE) with the object of improving the quality of Medical education. The National Board of Examinations (herein after called as NBE) conducts Post Graduate and Post Doctoral Examinations in approved specialities and awards Diploma of National Board. The Diploma qualification awarded by NBE are equated with Post Graduate and Post Doctoral degree for all purposes including the appointment to teaching posts. The Diploma by NBE are accepted globally.

¶56

The National Board of Examinations conducts

¶57

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶58

Centralized Entrance Examination for admission to superspeciality and Broad Speciality Courses and the selected candidates are allotted to the Teaching Hospitals for undergoing the courses and after completing the courses, Examinations are conducted by the National Board and Diploma is awarded by the Board. Based on the entrance examination conducted by the National Board, the petitioners were admitted to undergo DNB Courses in the Southern Railway Head Quarters Hospital, Ayanavaram, Perambur, Chennai. All the petitioners are registered Medical practitioners. The petitioners 23 to 26 have passed MBBS and MD/DNB General Medicine and have now been admitted to undergo DNB Cardiology Super-speciality three years course in the Southern Railway Head Quarters Hospital, Ayanavaram which is under the control of the seventh respondent. Similarly, all the petitioners are admitted to undergo DNB in post doctoral Super-speciality course or post graduate diploma course which are for three years or two years as the case may be.

¶59

It is stated that the National Board apart from selecting students and allotting them to various teaching hospitals to undergo the various Diploma courses is also empowered to fix the maximum fees that can be collected from the students and the minimum stipend that should be paid to the students. In other words, the Government Hospitals, Railway Hospitals and private hospitals are free to fix less fee or more stipend to the students selected to undergo the course in teaching hospitals.

¶60

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare fixed the emolument of Junior and senior residents working in all Central Government institutions, and hospitals including statutory and autonomous body wholly financed by the central Government. Their emoluments is also periodically revised as per pay commission recommendations.

¶61

It is the specific care of petitioners that the Ministry of Railways has recognised the status of DNB trainees in all the railway hospitals as junior residents and that they are paid emoluments on par with the resident doctors.

¶62

By proceedings dated 26.12.2013, the National Board informed the accredited hospitals, institutions and medical colleges about the revised fee structure and allowance payable to the DNB Students. It is made clear in the communication that the Board has only prescribed the maximum fees and minimum stipend payable to the students. The Ministry of Railway by letter dated 31.10.2014 addressed to the Railway hospitals informed that the railway board has decided to adopt the modified fees and guidelines to the DNB students. There was an attempt to reduce the stipend payable to the DNB students, who

¶63

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶64

were admitted in the year 2014 by the seventh respondent. This led to the filling of writ petition in W.P.No.32383 of 2014 by one Dr.Nagoor Meeran and 66 other DNB Students. The prayer is the writ petition is to forbear the seventh respondent from reducing the stipend payable to DNB students. Again the seventh respondent made the attempt to reduce the stipend to the students admitted in various DNB Courses during 2015. This time another writ petition was filed in W.P.No.26615 of 2015 by Dr.Ramanathan Ram Kumar and 21 others for issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing the seventh respondent to pay stipend to the petitioner on par with the salary of Junior Resident Doctor. The said writ petition in W.P.No.26615 of 2015 was allowed by this Court and the appeal filed by the Railway Board in W.A.No.1025 of 2016 against the order in W.P.No. 26615 of 2015 was dismissed.

¶65

8 Thereafter another batch of students, who are admitted to various DNB course during 2016 filed a writ petition in W.P. No.26274 of 2016 and the said writ petition was for issuing a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from implementing the revised fee structure, stipend and guidelines prescribed in the National Board of Examination and adopted by the Railway Board in the letter dated 31.10.2014 and the circular dated 27.11.2014. The said writ petition was also allowed by this court by an order dated 21.06.2017. It is to be noted that the petitioner who got admission in 2016-17 filed the above writ petition. It is also to be noticed that earlier students in Broad speciality and super-speciality were paid a sum of Rs.63,654/- as monthly stipend for the first year, a sum of Rs.65,521/- for the 2nd year and a sum of Rs.68,446/- for the 3rd year. However, this was suddenly reduced to Rs.25,000/- per month for the first year, Rs.27,000/- for the second year and Rs.29,000/- for the third year for DNB trainees. Similarly for DNB Super speciality trainees, the stipend was reduced to Rs.32,000/- for first year with marginal hike for second and third years.

¶66

9 This court after considering the qualification of the petitioners, which is equated to the Post Graduate Decree by the Indian University, observed that the amount of stipend cannot be reduced to the minimum prescribed by the National Board. This court also taking note of the fact that the second respondent namely National Board of Examinations has supported the stand of petitioner that there cannot be a reduction as the Board has fixed only the minimum and that the amount cannot be reduced after finding their eligible to get more while fixing the amount earlier. Since the NBE has prescribed the nature of duty and training this court has observed further that the stipend must be deemed to be salary and hence the same cannot be reduced. It is also pointed out by the learned Judge that similarly placed

¶67

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶68

trainees in other Hospitals of different regions of Railways are receiving stipend without any reduction and that the attempt to reduce the stipend payable to the petitioners is discriminatory and not justified.

¶69

10 As against the order passed in W.P.No.26274 of 2016, the respondents 3 to 7 in the writ petition filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.1000 of 2017 and the writ appeal was also dismissed by this court. It is pertinent to mention that the Division Bench compared the stipend that was payable to the writ petitioners by the appellants with the stipend amounts paid to DNB trainees in other zones of Railways. A perusal of the comparison chart that was extracted in the Judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench would clearly shows that the other zones of Railways, maintained the higher amount without reduction. It was observed that the appellant as a model employer cannot create a situation, whereby disparity is caused amongst its trainee doctors employed in different regions with regard to payment of stipend, albeit, without reasonable cause. Since, no distinguishing factors had been brought before court, the writ appeal was dismissed.

¶70

11 It is important to note that the Hon'ble Division Bench upheld the order of the learned single Judge with specific reference to the position that there cannot be disparity amongst the trainee Doctors employed by the respondents in different regions with regard to payment of stipend.

¶71

12 The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 8 filed a detailed counter. Sum and substance, it is the case of the contesting respondent that the order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1000 of 2017 and other instances relied upon by the petitioners, are not applicable to the petitioners. It is the specific case of contesting respondents that subsequently, the Chief Personal Officer, stopped paying higher stipend and started recovering the excess amount paid to the writ petitioner and others from the month of march 2018 based on the latest Railway Board circular dated 01.01.2018 to all other regions of Indian railways. Hence it is suggested by the contesting respondent that the respondents can restrict the stipend up to the minimum stipend recommended by the National Board in the letter dated 26.12.2013. It was also stated by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents that the stipend was reduced to DNB Trainees based on the orders issued by Railway Board dated 01.01.2018 and 31.10.2014 and the Medical Department, Southern Railway Head Quarters Hospital, Ayanavaram, Perambur, Chennai have no role in the fixation of stipend.

¶72

13 It is submitted by the seventh respondent that the Doctors pursuing DNB course in Railway hospital are not working as Doctor for patient care but are only trainees undergoing a

¶73

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶74

course as defined by NBE. It is further stated that they are only students and cannot be treated as Junior/senior resident Doctors in terms of the clarification received from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Since, the DNB Trainees are not students, it is submitted by seventh respondent that the stipend cannot be equated or treated as Salary for any purpose.

¶75

14 After the dismissal of the writ appeal in W.A.No.1000 of 2017, the Railway administration namely Principle Chief Personnel Officer, fixed and paid the increased stipend on par with other railways vide the Memorandum letter dated 31.10.2017 as per the order of this court in the W.P.No.26274 of 2016.

¶76

14 Though, the second respondent has not filed any independent counter affidavit, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent literally supported the stand taken by the writ petitioners. The case of the second respondent is that the stipend prescribed by the second respondent is only minimum. It is further stated that the said circular was issued based on the decision taken long back and that the revised circular enhancing stipend is also due and expected in December this year. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the National Board students really work hard and their services as a qualified Post Graduate Doctor is fully utilised. Though, the students are known as DNB trainees for the purpose of undergoing two year or three year super-speciality course, having regard to their qualification and experience the DNB trainees are expected to have more knowledge and they are always equated with persons, who have post doctoral decree given by Indian Universities. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent that no transfer is allowed or permitted to the students of DNB to opt for other religion. In the said circumstances, it is stated that the different treatment to DNB students by Southern Railway is unwarranted and discriminatory and hence this writ petition is also liable to be allowed.

¶77

15 The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners and pointed out that the petitioners were paid as stipend from October 2017 till February 2018. However, subsequently the Chief personal officer stopped the payment of excess amount based on the Railway Board circular dated 01.01.2018. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even after Railway Board circular dated 01.01.2018, the DNB trainees undergoing courses in other regions are paid stipend at higher rates. It is also stated that the Railway Board has made a decision recognising DNB trainees as resident doctors and that DNB trainees are entitled to get salary and other allowances on par with other doctors. It is also the case of petitioners that in other regions, the DNB trainees are treated

¶78

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶79

as resident doctors receiving salary and other allowances as stipend and it is only in the Railway hospital Perambur, chennai, a discriminating policy is adopted which is disadvantage to the petitioners.

¶80

During previous hearing, at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this court directed the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 8 to produce before this court the details of stipend being paid to DNB candidates at Northern Railway. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents produced before this court the communication from the Additional Chief Director, Northern Railway Hospital, New Delhi, dated 01.01.2018. As per the communication it is noted that the stipend or salary that has been paid to DNB trainees at Northern Railway in as per the Board letter dated 06.04.2009. As per the communication, stipend paid to the DNB trainees at Northern Railway is Rs.79,144/- for the first year, Rs.81,287/- for the second year and Rs.83,494/- for the third year. This communication indicates that the stipend that is being paid to DNB students from the year 2009 in Northern region is treated as salary and it is more than Rs.79,000/- for the first year. It shows that the attempt to reduce the stipend to the petitioners drastically to the minimum is unreasonable discriminatory and opposed to public policy.

¶81

17 This court find that the respondents 3 to 8, despite an order passed by this court earlier in similar writ petition daringly reduced the stipend for fresh entrants. It appears that it has now become a routine affair for the respondents to drive every Batch of DNB trainees to this court by an illegal act. While other DNB trainees who have been enrolled in other regions of Railways, get more amount by way of salary, H.R.A., DA, and other allowances, this petitioners are discriminated.

¶82

18 The Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has no reason to accept the circular issued by the second respondent fixing the minimum stipend for the DNB trainees. It is to be seen that the respondents cannot reduce the stipend when the stipend is held to be a salary for the service rendered by the DNB trainees in the respondent hospital. As it has been repeatedly held by this court in the earlier round of litigation here also the respondents made an attempt to reduce the stipend contrary to the Judgement of this Court, specifically holding that reduction in stipend is impermissible as the stipend, which is payable to the DNB trainee doctors should be regarded as salary. When this court has constantly held and found that there is no distinguishable factor brought forth by the respondents in the earlier round of litigation, this court is of the view that the conduct of the respondents is contumacious.

¶83

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶84

Therefore, this court allow the writ petition with strict warning to the respondents as they have not acted in good faith while interpreting the circular or discriminating the petitioners from other trainees in other regions of Railways.

¶85

19 Though, the second respondent supported the stand taken by the petitioners in the writ petitions filed by the previous batch of DND Trainees this court finds that the main reason for the respondents to reduce the stipend was on account of the circular that was issued long back by second respondent prescribing the minimum stipend payable to DNB trainees. Though, the circular was issued long back, there was no revision or an attempt to revise the stipend payable to DNB trainees. Keeping in mind, the various factors that affect the value of money as well as the standard of living the second respondent is directed to fix the stipend/ salary to the DNB trainees, so that the minimum stipend fixed by the board will not embarrass the DNB students to invite litigations.

¶86

20 In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also
closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pds/rpl
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Union of India,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶87

The Director National Board of Examinations (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India) NAMS Building Ansari Nagar, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110 029.

¶88

The Chairman Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶89

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶90

The Deputy Director (Health) Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 5. General Manager Southern Railway, Moore Market Complex, Chennai - 600 003. 6. The Chief Medical Director Southern Railway, Moore Market Complex, Chennai - 600 003. 7. The Medical Director Southern Railway Head Quarters Hospital, Aynavaram, Perambur, Chennai - 23. 8. The Additional Chief Health Director & DNB Coordinator, Southern Railway Head Quarters Hospital, Aynavaram, Perambur, Chennai – 23. +2cc to M/s.P.T.Ramkumar, Advocate SR.No.70049 +1cc to M/s.G.Karthikeyan, Advocate SR.No.69594 +1cc to M/s.J.Madanagopal Rao, Advocate SR.No.69435 W.P.Nos. 14430 & 18121 of 2018 in W.M.P. Nos.16454,17045,21407 & 21408 of 2018 NRI(CO) GMY(09/11/2018)

¶91

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.Muthulakshmi v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Muthulakshmi v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kennedy Industrial Vs the Joint Director O/O the

Hiranandani Upscale School Vs The State of Tamilnadu

The Secretary, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Dhaagopal Vs The District Collector

Ramalingam Aided Middle School Vs The Director of Elementary

K.Marimuthu, Vs Joint Director of Secondary