Dismissed

Dr P.V Ranganayakula v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC27 Nov 2012WP/19107/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by Ayurvedic doctors challenging the TTD's decision to lift a ban on their private practice and withdraw the compensation allowance. The court held that lifting the ban is a policy decision not amenable to judicial review, found no discrimination as the classes differ, and ruled the absence of reasons did not invalidate the order.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions were failed and dismissed. The withdrawal of non-practice allowance was upheld.

Dr P.V Ranganayakula Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 3544 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION No. 19107 OF 2008 Between: WP.No. 3544 of 2009 Dr.A.Mohan & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary, Medical & Family Welfare Department, Hyderabad & Ors. … Respondents Between: WP.No. 19107 of 2008. Dr.P.V.Ranganayakula & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary, Medical & Family Welfare Department, Hyderabad & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Smt. M. Vidyavathi Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP for Medical Health & Family Welfare

¶5

Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 3: Sri M.Venkataramana Reddy SC for TTD Counsel for the Respondents 4 to 6: Sri B. Narayana Reddy

¶6

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 3544 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION No. 19107 OF 2008

¶8

COMMON ORDER :

¶9

The point involved in both these writ petitions is same and therefore they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶10

2. The petitioners in WP.No. 3544 of 2009 who are eight in number

¶11

and the petitioners in WP.No. 19107 of 2008 which was originally filed by four petitioners are all Ayurvedic Doctors and are Professors or Assistant Professors working in S.V. Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Tirupati, which is the third respondent and it is established and run by the second respondent i.e., Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam [TTD]. Thus they are under the control of the second respondent.

¶12

3. For some time prior to 31-5-2008 there was a ban on the private practice of Ayurvedic doctors imposed by the second respondent and the Ayurvedic doctors including the petitioners were being paid non-private practice allowance at various rates. It is stated that non-private practice allowance for Allopathic doctors under TTD was 30% as there was ban on their private practice also. Therefore, the petitioners and some other

¶13

Ayurvedic doctors submitted a representation dated 10-1-2008 for

¶14

enhancing the non-private practice allowance to be paid to them also to 30% on par with Allopathic doctors as earlier it was less than that. The other details are not necessary but it would be sufficient to note that the third respondent-college sent an office note on that representation of the Ayurvedic doctors. The second respondent’s Administrative Board considered the said representation/request and rejected it. It should be now noted here that the second respondent’s Board not only rejected the above representation but by its Resolution No.766 dated 22-3-2008 resolved to lift the earlier ban and permit the Ayurvedic doctors under its control to do private practice while withdrawing the above allowance.

¶15

4. It was pursuant to the above Resolution the Executive Officer of the second respondent issued proceedings dated 31-5-2008, which are consequential and the said proceedings would read that Ayurvedic doctors are permitted to do private practice and the earlier non-private practice allowance that was paid to them is withdrawn. The petitioners are challenging the above proceedings in these two writ petitions on various grounds as amplified by Madam, Smt.M.Vidyathi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the matters. It is brought to my notice that subsequently petitioners 1 and 2 in WP.No.19107 of 2008 have withdrawn from the said petition. This, however, does not make any difference with regard to other parties in the said writ petition as questions raised are those of law in both the writ petitions.

¶16

5. The first ground is that the ban is still being continued in respect of Allopathic doctors and they are being paid the non-private practice

¶17

allowance at 30% and the Ayurvedic doctors have been wrongly discriminated against in denying that benefit of allowance to them and that is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶18

6. The second ground is that the proceedings dated 31-5-2008 are totally bereft of reasons and the second respondent tried to give reasons in the counter-affidavit and that is not permissible as administrative order should contain reasons for the action taken in such order itself and therefore the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside on that ground alone.

¶19

7. The third ground is that the petitioners and several other Ayurvedic doctors, having regard to the earlier ban on their private practice have close down their clinics and are now not in a position to take up accommodation and start private practice and this is causing much hardship to them. Thus above three grounds are the main grounds on which the writ petitions have been based.

¶20

8. Sri M.Venkataramana Reddy, the learned standing counsel for

¶21

the Respondents 2 and 3 and Sri B.Narayana Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for some of the Ayurvedic doctors, who are supporting the impugned order and who got impleaded as other respondents in these two writ petitions submitted that the decision of the second respondent to

¶22

impose ban or lifting ban on private practice is purely a policy decision of the second respondent, and therefore, that cannot be challenged. It is also stated by them that earlier when the ban was imposed in 2004 the same was challenged unsuccessfully in WP.No. 9915 of 2001 and the petitioners therein also filed WA.No. 1715 of 2005 which was dismissed and the Supreme Court also upheld the same. It is argued that in the said matter a Division Bench of this Court upheld the action of the TTD in imposing the ban on the ground that it is a policy decision. The contention is having regard to that decision the TTD can be equally said to have power to lift the ban in exercise of that power to take policy decision as it can undo what it has done in exercise of that power.

¶23

9. Both Sri M.Venkatramana Reddy and Sri B.Narayana Reddy

¶24

pointed out that the policy decision need not contain any reason and therefore it cannot be challenged on that ground also as it is not going to affect adversely the salary or other emoluments of the petitioners to which they are entitled to as employees. It is also contended by them that the Resolution No. 766 dated 22-3-2008 is not challenged and consequently the writ petitions are not maintainable on that ground alone. Regarding the violation of equality clause in Article 14, the contention of Sri M.Venkataramana Reddy is that Ayurvedic doctors are a class by themselves whereas Allopathic doctors are another class by themselves and both cannot be treated equally and consequently it cannot be said that there is any violation of equality clause. In the light of the above contention,

¶25

the controversy in these writ petitions relating to the validity of the impugned proceedings should be decided.

¶26

10. It may be noted that in the judgment in WA.No.1715 of 2003 dated 21-4-2004, a Division Bench of this Court elaborately dealt with the validity of the private practice ban imposed in respect of Ayurvedic doctors in the service of the second respondent. This Court held that taking of a decision to impose ban on private practice by Ayurvedic doctors would clearly fall within the ambit of a policy decision of the TTD Board in view of Section 97 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [for short ‘the Act”] and therefore the correctness or otherwise of the same cannot be gone into by the Court. It may also be noted that the Government is also continuing the ban in respect of certain class of doctors and even the TTD is continuing the ban in respect of Allopathic doctors regarding private practice but they are policy decision and they are not amenable to courts jurisdiction. When the ban was imposed on private practice of Ayurvedic doctors they were paid nonpracticing allowance as compensation and after the ban is lifted it is clear that Ayurvedic doctors can have additional income from their private practice and in view of the same non-practice allowance has been withdrawn. Further an employee who takes up service under an employer has to take up service subject to certain conditions. In the present case, non-practice allowance cannot be said to part of salary or other

¶27

emoluments of the Ayurvedic doctors paid for their duties and it was paid only by way of compensation when ban was imposed on private practice. Since that is lifted now that allowance is also withdrawn. Therefore, that cannot be said to be an illegality in as much as that allowance is only treated as an amount paid by way of compensation. Even Mrs.Vidyavathi, at one stage fairly admitted that imposing the ban on private practice or lifting it is a policy decision of TTD but she based her contention on the above three grounds. The reasons given in the judgment in WA.No. 1715 of 2003, however, hold good even for lifting the ban and I respectfully follow the same. What should be noted is that if TTD has got power to impose the ban on private practice it can be said to have equally that power to undo it.

¶28

11. Then coming to the first ground of discrimination, it may be

¶29

noted that Allopathic doctors stand altogether on a different footing and the treatment given by them and the medicine prescribed by them are altogether different. Whereas Ayurvedic medicine is altogether different. Therefore, both cannot be compared and said to be of the same class or category. They constitute different classes or categories and therefore a complaint of discrimination in respect of both of them with regard to private practice cannot be entertained. Hence, action of the TTD in lifting the ban on private practice of Ayurvedic doctors cannot be said to be discriminative at all, as nothing is lost by them. The only loss to them is non-practice allowance, which they get in addition to their regular salary and that allowance has been discontinued following the lifting of ban. Thus the

¶30

ground of discrimination cannot be sustained.

¶31

12. Then coming to the second ground of absence of reasons in the impugned order, it is true that nothing is mentioned as to why the ban was lifted. However absence of reasons in such an order lifting the ban cannot be said to make the order invalid. What should be noted here is by lifting the ban any legal right of the petitioners cannot be said to have been violated. The absence of reasons in an administrative order may make it invalid when it adversely affects the rights of the persons covered by such an order and not otherwise. It may be noted that non-practicing allowance, which was paid when the ban was in force, cannot be treated as an essential condition of service relating to emoluments such as salary or dearness allowance and other like allowance. In fact the petitioners were not paid non-practicing allowance when they joined service as there was no ban then. It was only subsequently when the ban was imposed petitioners and other Ayurvedic doctors were paid allowance by way of compensation for what they lost from the private practice. Now by lifting ban what is done is the said allowance is withdrawn and this is only consequential. Hence the fact that the impugned order is bereft of reasons cannot become a ground for invalidating it. In fact when the ban was imposed earlier the petitioners and the other Ayurvedic doctors were paid non-practice allowance by way of compensation and that is withdrawn now by lifting the ban.

¶32

13. Coming to the third ground, the grievance of the petitioners is

¶33

that they and some other Ayurvedic doctors have closed down their clinics soon after the imposition of ban earlier and are now not in a position to again take up accommodation to start private practice and therefore denial of non-practice allowance is unreasonable. Entertaining such a request would be against all reasons. The plea of petitioners that since they cannot start private practice now and some of them are on the verge of retirement they should be paid the said allowance by continuing the ban can be said to be an unreasonable demand. I think no authority is also necessary to support this view, as the said allowance has always been paid when doctors were prevented from doing private practice which they can do now. Hence, the third ground is also rejected. So far as the request of the petitioners and other Ayurvedic doctors for enhancement of non-private practice allowance to 30% on par with allopathic doctors atleast upto the date of lifting of the ban by the impugned order, the petitioners can make a separate representation and the second respondent shall consider and dispose of the same by passing appropriate order.

¶34

14. Regarding the contention of the respondents that the petitioners have not challenged the Resolution No.766 dated 23-2-2008, I think that need not be gone into now as even the contentions of the petitioners regarding the validity of the impugned order are held to be not acceptable and hence that question is not gone into.

¶35

15. For the aforesaid reasons, both these writ petitions fail and are

¶36

accordingly dismissed. No costs. All the WPMPs and vacate petition shall

¶37

stand disposed of in terms of the result in both these writ petitions.

¶38

_______________________________

¶39

JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶40

27/11/2012 I s L

¶41

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶42

WRIT PETITION No. 3544 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION No. 19107 OF 2008

¶43

Circulation No. 37 Date:27/11/2012 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43

Dr P.V Ranganayakula v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr P.V Ranganayakula v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

V.Sarada Vs The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Tirumala, Tirupathi

Modi Jamla, Vs A.P. Grameena Vikasa Bank

Modi Jamla Vs A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank

B. Sambasiva Reddy Warangal Vs the Warangal District Co-Operative. Ltd. and Another

P.Nageswara Rao, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

West Godavari Cooperative Sugars Ltd., Seasonal Vs The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guntur