Allowed

Nem Chand and Others v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jan 2010CWP/11135/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, pharmacists in CRPF, sought implementation of 5th Pay Commission recommendations for pay upgradation and promotional avenues. The court directed respondents to consider these recommendations and pass a reasoned order within four months, noting inadequate promotion despite prior directions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider 5th Pay Commission recommendations and pass a reasoned order within four months.

Nem Chand and Others Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No. 11135 of 2007

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 11135 of 2007 Date of decision: 07.01.2010

Nem Chand and others

....Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

¶11

Present: - Mr. Rajiv Anand, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Naveen Chopra, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for the respondents.

¶13

PERMOD KOHLI, J.

¶14

The petitioners are working as Pharmacists in the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector in the Central Reserve Police Force. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for implementation of the recommendations of the 5^th Central Pay Commission regarding restructuring of combatised pharmacist cadre and creation of promotional avenues etc.

¶15

The cadre of the pharmacist was earlier non-combatised, however, in the year 1989, the cadre of pharmacist was made combatised with designation ASI/Pharmacist. They are in Group 'C' Combatised Hospital Staff and are governed by Group 'C' and 'D' CRPF Combatised Hospital Staff Recruitment Rules, 1995. Apart from possessing the requisite qualifications, they are also required to conform to the physical standards laid down for combatised person like height, weight, chest, vision etc. and should in medical category SHAPE 1. They are also to

¶16

CWP No. 11135 of 2007

¶17

-2-

¶18

undergo a basic combatised course of nine weeks' duration, which includes physical and weapon training.

¶19

The grievance of the petitioners is non-availability of adequate promotional avenues. Central Government established 5^th Central Pay Commission and the case of the petitioners and similarly situated employees was also considered by the 5^th Central Pay Commission, which gave its recommendations. Insofar the petitioners are concerned, relevant recommendations are contained in Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. Para 52.90 containing recommendations concerning the Pharmacists reads as under: -

¶20

“52.90 Upgradation of pay scale of Registered Pharmacists is sought from Rs.1350-2200 to Rs.14002600 at par with diploma holders of other disciplines like Engineering Nursing etc Pharmacy Council of India, recommended in 1976 and 1994 that the pay scale and promotion avenues of Pharmacists should be at par with other technical diploma holders in Engineering and Technology as the post of pharmacist is also technical. We recommend that Pharmacists in view of the prescribed entry qualifications should be placed in the scale of Rs.1400-2300 at entry qualifications should be placed in the scale of Rs.1400-2300 at entry. The grade structure in existence at present should be modified as follows: - Nomenclature Pay Scale Qualification Pharmacists Gr. I Rs.1640-2900 2^nd ACP Pharmacists Gr. II Rs.1600-2600 1^st ACP Pharmacists Gr. III Rs.1400-2300 10+2+2 yrs. Diploma + 3 months training and registration.

¶21

CWP No. 11135 of 2007

¶22

-3-

¶23

Wherever there is a post of Chief Pharmacists it should be placed in the pay scale of Rs.2000+3500. Posts of Chief Pharmacists may also be created in the hospitals in the pay scale of Rs.2000+3500 based on functional justification. In future no recruitment should be made in this cadre with qualifications of less than diploma. All those incumbents who possess a diploma in Pharmacy and are in lower scales at present may also be brought into the scale of Rs.1400+2300. Incumbents not possessing Diploma in Pharmacy may continue in the replacement pay scale corresponding to their existing scales with ACP only.”

¶24

These recommendations were principally accepted by the Government. The recommendations were forwarded to respondent No.1 vide letter dated 8.9.2000. Respondent No.1 kept the matter pending for four years and it was in the year 2004 the same were referred to respondent No.2 Ministry of Finance.

¶25

It is stated that the recommendations are still pending there. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that no decision has been taken by the respondents on the recommendations of the 5^th Pay Commission. It is further argued that the Pharmacists working in various other departments of Government of India have got the benefit of financial upgradation. The petitioners earlier filed civil writ petition No. 20248 of 2006 titled Nem Chand and others Vs. Union of India and others. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court with the following directions: -

¶26

“CWP No. 20248 of 2006

¶27

Present: Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the petitioners. This petition is disposed of with a direction to

¶28

CWP No. 11135 of 2007

¶29

-4-

¶30

Respondent No.1 to expeditiously decide the petitioners' legal notice dated August 22, 2006 Annexure P 7 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by passing a speaking order.”

¶31

It is alleged that despite aforesaid directions, no decision was taken forcing the petitioners to file a contempt petition. The said contempt petition was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 28.3.2007 in view of passing of a speaking order by the respondents dated 28.3.2007 disposing of the legal notice of the petitioners. The copy of the aforesaid order is placed on record as Annexure P-7. In the aforesaid letter following has been communicated: -

¶32

“Yardsticks for the staffing of Composite Hospitals, providing for career progression of paramedic cadre (including Pharmacists) have already been suggested by the Ministry in February 2007 and a proposal for creation of requisite posts is being taken up for approval of Ministry of Finance. This proposal, if agreed to by Ministry of Finance, will provide the career progression pleaded by the petitioners.”

¶33

In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated in para 19 that the proposal submitted to MHA is pending with the Finance Ministry. It will be implemented after cadre re-structuring as opined by the 5^th Pay Commission in its report. Reference is made to para 52.90 of the 5^th Pay Commission recommendations. It is further stated that to implement the recommendations various conditions are required to be satisfied like changes in recruitment rules, restructuring of cadres, redistribution of posts into higher grades etc. It is, however, stated in the reply that the petitioners are being given benefit of ACP under the scheme of the

¶34

CWP No. 11135 of 2007

¶35

-5-

¶36

Government of India.

¶37

From the averments made in the reply, it is clear that the 5^th Pay Commission recommendations concerning the petitioners i.e. ASI/Pharmacists have not been implemented till date, even though steps were initiated in the year 2000. 5^th Pay Commission recommendations were made applicable in respect to the Central Government employees w.e.f. 1.1.1996. It is more than nine years now that the report submitted by the Cadre Review Committee to the Government of India has not been finally considered. In the meantime, 6^th Pay Commission recommendations have also been received and implemented. It is admitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners do not have adequate promotional avenues. Promotion is an important and relevant incidence of service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that the promotion to any employee is an inseparable incidence of service and it brings efficiency in the service. In Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain Vs. Union of India, 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 688 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -

¶38

“7. This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision of promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the nonmedical 'A' Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of

¶39

CWP No. 11135 of 2007

¶40

-6-

¶41

Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed within four months from now providing promotional avenue for the 'A' category scientists in the non-medical wing of the Directorate.”

¶42

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the question of implementation of 5^th Pay Commission recommendations as indicated in para 52.90 referred to above in respect to the Pharmacists in the light of similar benefit granted to similarly situated persons in other organisations. Let final decision be taken within a period of four months from today. It is, however, pertinent to mention that in case, the petitioners have already been provided the promotional avenues in view of the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission, it may not be necessary for the respondents to implement the recommendations of the 5^th Central Pay Commission. In any case, the respondents are under obligation to pass a reasoned and speaking order in this regard and communicate to the petitioners.

¶43

(Permod Kohli) Judge

¶44

January 07, 2010 R.S.

Nem Chand and Others v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nem Chand and Others v. Union of India and Others

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

Sat Narain and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rajesh Singhal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jagmal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Bhoop Singh Vs Dgp Hry & Ors.

Sukhbir Singh Vs Director General of Police Haryana

Parmdeep Singh Vs UOI and Ors.