Dismissed

Dr. Govind Prasad Srivastava v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC19 Dec 2016L.P.A/1458/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Letters Patent Appeal, the Patna High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge to an order denying him the monthly honorarium of Rs. 30,000 payable to active Dental Surgeons. The court held that the relevant circular applied only to serving employees and not to retirees drawing pension.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower court's order that the appellant is not entitled to the honorarium.

Dr. Govind Prasad Srivastava Vs The State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.1458 of 2016

¶3

arising out of

¶4

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18697 of 2014 with

¶5

Interlocutory Application No.5570 of 2016.

¶6

===========================================================

¶7

Dr. Govind Prasad Srivastava, son of Late Bindeshari Prasad, resident of MohallaKirankunj, Harishchandra Stadium Road, P.O.+P.S.+District- Nawada at presently posted as Dental Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Nawada.

¶8

.... .... Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Health, Bihar Patna.

¶11

The Executive Director, State Health Society, Bihar Patna.

¶12

The Regional Deputy Director, Health Service Magadh Division Gaya.

¶13

The District Officer-Cum-Chairman, District Health Society, Nawada.

¶14

The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer-Cum Member Secretary District Health Society, Nawada.

¶15

The Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Nawada.

¶16

The Treasury Officer, Nawada.

¶17

.... .... Respondents

¶18

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, Adv. : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Sahi, Adv. For the State : Mr. Anirban Kundu-SC24

¶19

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

and

¶21

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 19-12-2016

¶23

Re. Interlocutory Application No.5570 of 2016.

¶24

The application is for condonation of delay of 68 days

¶25

in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶26

For the reasons mentioned in the application, we find

¶27

that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Consequently, we condone the delay in filing of the present Letters

¶28

Patna High Court LPA No.1458 of 2016 dt.19-12-2016

¶29

2/5

¶30

Patent Appeal.

¶31

Interlocutory Application stands allowed accordingly.

¶32

Re: Letters Patent Appeal No.1458 of 2016.

¶33

The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order dated 06.04.2016 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby, the writ application filed by the appellant for direction to the respondents to pay Rs. 30,000/- as honorarium w.e.f., 19^th July, 2011 in terms of Annxure-6 remained unsuccessful.

¶34

The appellant superannuated from the post of Dental Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital Nawada on 28^th of February, 2001. The appellant was appointed as Dental Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Nawada, on contract basis vide communication dated 17^th May, 2006 on consolidated fee of Rs. 500/- per day for a maximum of two days in a week. Subsequently, on 1^st February, 2009, the days of services of Dental Surgeons such as appellant were enhanced from two days in a week to six days in a week at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day.

¶35

The State issued circular on 19^th July, 2011 for directing to pay honorarium of Rs. 30,000/- per month to the Dental Surgeons at par the Medical Officers. The appellant claims benefit of such honorarium by way of representation submitted to the respondents. The appellant was informed by the Civil Surgeon on

¶36

Patna High Court LPA No.1458 of 2016 dt.19-12-2016

¶37

3/5

¶38

19^th August, 2015 that he can be paid such amount after deducting the pension amount. The grievance of the appellant is that he is entitled to Rs. 30,000/- honorarium per month without any deduction of pension at par the Medical Officers in terms of the circular issued .

¶39

The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition for the reason that the Circular dated 19^th July, 2011 is applicable to Dental Surgeons not to retirees. It is applicable to the Dental Surgeons engaged for the first time on contract basis.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant referred paras 4 and 5 of the said circular to contend that the Dental Surgeons have been placed at par with the Medical Officers as it was decided to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month as honorarium, although there is no condition of deduction of the pension from the said amount. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to sum of Rs. 30,000/- as honorarium per month.

¶41

We do not find that such circular has any applicability to the retired Dental Surgeons such as the appellant. Para 4 of the circular noticed the fact that the Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons are being paid different amounts when engaged on contract basis, though, both are in the same pay-scale i.e., 930034800 and grade pay of 5400. Since the Medical Officers and

¶42

Patna High Court LPA No.1458 of 2016 dt.19-12-2016

¶43

4/5

¶44

Dental Surgeons are said to be in the same pay-scale, therefore, it was decided to pay the same amount of honorarium. The said circular was issued to amend an earlier circular dated 23^rd August, 2007 whereby the Dental Surgeons were ordered to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as honorarium.

¶45

Though, the circular dated 23^rd August, 2007 is not on record but the fact remains that in the circular Annexure-6 it is decided that the honorarium to Dental Surgeons and Medical Officers should be at par in view of the fact that they are in the same pay-scale. Admittedly, the pay-scale would be applicable in respect of an officer prior to superannuation. Thus the finding recorded by the learned Single Bench that the said circular does not pertain to retirees cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted in any manner.

¶46

Learned counsel for the appellant refers to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others (Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013, decided on 26^th of October, 2016) to contend that there cannot be any inequality in respect of nature of payment to the different categories of the employees may be ad hoc, work-charge, daily wages etc. We do not find any merit in the said argument as well. As observed earlier, the circular dated 19^th of July, 2011 is not applicable to the retired employees who are drawing pension. The judgment rendered

¶47

Patna High Court LPA No.1458 of 2016 dt.19-12-2016

¶48

5/5

¶49

in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) is not applicable to the appellant as such judgment pertains to the payment of salary under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ prior to retirement.

¶50

The appellant was engaged as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter of appointment -Annexure-1. The terms and conditions of the appointment are modified by the letter of appointment produced by the appellant as Annexure-2. The circular as contained in Annexure-6 is not applicable to the retired employees but is applicable to the doctors who are engaged to meet the requirement of state to provide medical services to people, therefore, benefit of such honorarium fixed in the said circular cannot be extended to retired employees such as the appellant, who

¶51

are drawing pension after attaining age of superannuation.

¶52

We do not find any merit in the Letters Patent Appeal,

¶53

accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶54

(Hemant Gupta, ACJ)

¶55

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)

¶56

Amrendra/Ashwini

¶57

AFR/NAFR	A.F.R.
CAVDATE	N.A.
UploadingDate	22/12/2016
Transmission Date

Dr. Govind Prasad Srivastava v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Govind Prasad Srivastava v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

Bihar Satff Selection Commission and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Nai Rajdhani Path Pramandal Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax T D S and Ors.

Ravindra Singh Vs Union Of India and Ors.

Keshwa Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Supauli Primary Agriculture Credit Society Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Srivastava Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.