Animal Husbandry Scheduled v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC6 Dec 2023WP/18510/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a federation of employees seeking risk allowances for Animal Husbandry Assistants. The court directed the respondents to consider the petition positively within twelve weeks and send recommendations if necessary, rather than granting the specific allowance requested immediately.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Respondents directed to consider the case positively and make recommendations within twelve weeks.

Animal Husbandry Scheduled Vs The Government… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.18510 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

W.P.No.18510 of 2018

¶7

Animal Husbandry Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Employees Federation Rep by its District Secretary K.Santhana Muthu 53/2, Post Office Street Valasai, Kadayanallur (TK) Thirunelveli (DT)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Chief Secretary Secreteriat, Fort St.George Chennai-9

¶11

2.The Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Finance Department Secretariat, Fort.St.George Chennai-9

¶12

3.The Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department Secretariat, Fort.St.George Chennai-9

¶13

The Director

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/8

¶16

W.P.No.18510 of 2018

¶17

Animal Husbandry and Veteniray Service DMS Complex, 3^rd floor, Block 2 Annasalai, Teynampet, Chennai-18

¶18

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to sanction risk allowances to the Animal husbandry Assistants on par with the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and Veterinary Inspector in light of the G.O.Ms.No.236, dated 01.06.2003 issued by the 2^nd respondent and G.O.Ms.No.306 dated 13^th October 2017 issued by the 1^st respondent in order to achieve the Constitutional goal.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vijendran

¶20

For Respondents : Dr.T.Seenivasan, Spl.G.P

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Writ petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct

¶23

the respondents to sanction risk allowances to the Animal husbandry Assistants on par with the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and Veterinay Inspector in light of the G.O.Ms.No.236, dated 01.06.2003 issued by the 2^nd respondent and G.O.Ms.No.306 dated 13^th October 2017 issued by the 1^st respondent.

¶24

The case of the petitioner is that they formed the federation in the year 2011

¶25

to expose the cause of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes people and employees under the 3^rd and 4^th respondent. The Animal Husbandry department plays major role

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

2/8

¶28

W.P.No.18510 of 2018

¶29

in providing veterinary health care and improving the genetic production potentialities of livestock and poultry reared in the State. The Animal Husbandry department in looking after the implementation of various schemes on development of livestock population, sheep and goat development ect., The department also conducts animal health programmes known as “Kalnadai Pathukappu Thittam” in remote and inaccessible areas to provide total livestock health cover to the animals reared by farmers. While carrying out all the above mentioned works the veterinary surgeons, veterinary Inspector and the Animal Husbandry Assistants are playing vital role like vaccination programme, diagnosis of animals, castration, artificial insemination etc., the above employees are facing high risks with the hands of the animals. Therefore, the Government has been considered the risk facing by the above employees sanctioned risk allowances to the veterinary surgeons and veterinary inspectors but no such risk allowance is sanctioned to the Animal Husbandry Assistants though they are facing more risk than the veterinary surgeons and veterinary Inspectors. In this regard, they have made representation to the respondents on 18.06.2013,31.03.2017 and 27.06.2017 requesting to provide risk allowances and other demands.

¶30

The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the averments raised by the

¶31

petitioner federation. The case of the petitioner is to direct the respondents to sanction risk allowances to the Animal Husbandry Assistants on par with the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons and Veterinary Inspector in light of the G.O.Ms.No.236, Finance

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

3/8

¶34

W.P.No.18510 of 2018

¶35

(Pay Cell) department, dated 01^st June 2009 and G.O.Ms.No.306, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13^th October 2017 issued by the 2^nd respondent.

¶36

The service of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons and the Livestock Inspectors in this department involves risk of getting affected by the zoonotic diseases, which are very contagious and infectious in nature. The risk allowance was granted to the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons vide G.O.Ms.No.1345, Agriculture (AH VII) department dated 09.07.1986 and it was extended to the Livestock Inspectors vide the G.O.Ms.No.395, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Department, dated 25.07.1990. The Animal Husbandry Assistants in the Animal Husbandry department assists the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons by handling livestocks while performing treatment to them bringing required medicines, cleaning the premises of the Veterinary Dispensary and watering, assist in other department related works including taking tapals to the administrative office, whenever required as per the instruction of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons, which are not hazardous in nature. The risk allowance is paid only to those employees of the State who are all facing hazardous tasks during their service and the same cannot be extended to every employee of the State, which will result in burden to the State exchequer. The Animal Husbandry Assistants Post in Animal Husbandry department is a feeder category post which is created only to assist the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons while doing treatment to the wounded or infected livestocks, bringing medicines, cleaning the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

4/8

¶38

W.P.No.18510 of 2018

¶39

premise, watering and handling the livestocks, which cannot be considered as hazardous tasks. He would further submit that extending the risk allowance to the Animal Husbandry Assistants will result in opening “Pandora box” to other similarly working employees in various departments, which will burden the State Exchequer and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶41

It is seen that the Government has considered the risk faced by the employees in this regard but only with regard to Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Inspectors risk allowance have been sanctioned. But the petitioners the Animal Husbandry Assistants are facing high risk than the Surgeons and the Inspectors when handling the animals they have to take care of the animal before the same has been diagonised by the Surgeons. The Animal Husbandry Assistants have to take care of the animal before the same is checked by the Surgeons and Inspectors. If they did not take control of the animal the Veterinary Surgeons and Inspectors will not be in a position to handle the animal. Hence, the work of the petitioners also having high risk and leaving these persons and giving risk allowance to others would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

5/8

¶44

W.P.No.18510 of 2018

¶45

Hence, this Court is of the view, that the case of the petitioners has to be

¶46

considered positively and appropriate orders to be passed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the case of the petitioners is not considered positively, appropriate recommendations may be sent to the Government for granting risk allowance to the Animal Husbandry Assistants not on par with the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons and Livestock Inspectors. The amount may vary, but the case of the petitioners has to be considered positively by the respondents.

¶47

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶48

06.12.2023

¶49

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking / Nonspeaking order kpr

¶50

¶51

1.The Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

6/8

¶53

W.P.No.18510 of 2018

¶54

Secreteriat, Fort St.George Chennai-9

¶55

2.The Principal Secretary

¶56

to the Government of Tamil Nadu Finance Department Secretariat, Fort.St.George Chennai-9

¶57

3.The Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department Secretariat, Fort.St.George Chennai-9

¶58

The Director

¶59

Animal Husbandry and Veteniray Service DMS Complex, 3^rd floor, Block 2 Annasalai, Teynampet, Chennai-18

¶60

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN J.

¶61

kpr

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

7/8

¶64

W.P.No.18510 of 2018

¶65

W.P.No.18510 of 2018

¶66

06.12.2023

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

8/8

Animal Husbandry Scheduled v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Animal Husbandry Scheduled v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

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

R.Rebecca Suganthi Vs The Director of

J.Vimalarani Devakirubai Vs The Director of

M.G.Helan Vs The Director of

M.Thirukatesan Vs Suresh Kumar and another

M.Veeraiya Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

M.Patties Vs Amutha IAS and another