A.Selvarani v. The Secretary to Government
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Aug 2009
- Bench
- D HARIPARANTHAMAN
Outcome
Dismissed
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 1212. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. TK To 1. The Secretary to Government Finance (P.C) Department Chennai 600 009.
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.9281 of 2007 A.Selvarani ... Petitioner Vs.
The Secretary to Government Finance (P.C) Department Chennai 600 009.
The Secretary to Government Health and Family Welfare Department Chennai 600 009.
The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services Teynampet, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.349 of 2002 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to direct the respondents to revise the time scale of pay of the applicant as Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 01.01.1996 on par with the category of Sector Health Nurses working in the Primary Health Centres in the State and also direct the respondents to grant arrears of pay with effect from 01.01.1996 and other consequential monetary benefits on par with the Sector Health Nurses. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Loganathan for Mr.S.M.Subramaniam For Respondents : Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R The petitioner filed an Original Application in O.A.No.349 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) for a direction to the respondents to revise her time scale of pay as Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 01.01.1996 on par with the category of Sector Health Nurses working in the Primary Health Centres in the State and also for a direction to grant arrears of pay with effect from 01.01.1996 and other consequential monetary benefits on par with the Sector Health Nurses.
2. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.No.9281 of 2007.
3. Heard the submissions made by Mr. Mr.M.Loganathan for Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
The petitioner was working as a Health Visitor in the District T.B.Centre, Government Hospital, Villupuram.
The pay was revised by G.O.Ms.No.666, Finance (PC) Department, dated 27.06.1989 based on the recommendation of the V Pay Commission. As per this Government Order, the scale of pay for Multi Purpose Health Supervisors was revised to Rs.13502200 and for Sector Health Nurses, it was revised to Rs.14002600 and for Health Visitors, it was revised to Rs.12002040.
However, another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1057, Finance (PC) Department, dated 25.09.1989 was issued amending the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.666 and revising the pay to Rs.1350 2200 from Rs.1400 2600 for Sector Health Nurses on the ground that the mistake was being rectified.
Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.113, Finance (PC) Department, dated 31.01.1990 was issued revising the scale of pay of Health Visitors to Rs.1350 2200 from Rs.1200 2040.
That is, all the three posts viz., Health Visitors, Multi Purpose Health Supervisors and Sector Health Nurses were placed in the same scale of pay of Rs.1350 2200 after the passing of the G.O.Ms.No.113.
But the Tamil Nadu Health Visitors Association representing the Sector Health Nurses, filed an Original Application in O.A.No.786 of 1990 before the Tribunal to quash the G.O.Ms.No.1057, Finance (PC) Department, dated 25.09.1989, revising the scale of Sector Health Nurses from Rs.1400 2600 to Rs.1350 2200 on par with Health Supervisors (Male). The Tribunal allowed the said Original Application on 13.05.1996 and issued the following directions: "We direct the respondents to take into account the recommendation given by the Fifth Pay Commission as well as the orders passed by them in G.O.Ms.No.666, Finance (Pay Cell), dated: 27.06.1989. The nature of duties between the female Sector Nurse is different from the Health Supervisor (Male). The volume of work and the nature of work, according to the learned counsel of the applicant Association, varies for all these reasons, we quash the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.1057, Finance (PC), dated: 25.09.1989 and direct the respondents to retain the scale of pay of the applicant Association as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.666, Finance (PC), dated: 27.06.1989".
However, the Government took the matter to the Honourable Apex Court and the Honourable Apex Court upheld the order of the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.91, Finance (PC) Department, dated 26.02.1997 in terms of the order of the Tribunal referred to above.
Therefore, fixing of different scale of pay of Rs.1400 2600 to Sector Health Nurses, taking into account the nature of work, was held to be justified by the Tribunal and subsequently by the Honourable Apex Court. The petitioner, without being aware of the aforesaid facts, has claimed parity with the Sector Health Nurses. Therefore, when the scale of pay of Rs.1400 2600 was revised to Rs.5000 8000, the scale of Rs.1350 2200 was revised to Rs.4500 7000 by the VI Pay Commission and the petitioner could have no grievance for such different scale, being prescribed for Sector Health Nurses. Hence, the petitioner, who is a Health Visitor, claiming parity with Sector Health Nurses fails.
Operative part
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. TK To 1. The Secretary to Government Finance (P.C) Department Chennai 600 009.
2. The Secretary to Government Health and Family Welfare Department Chennai 600 009.
3. The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services Teynampet, Chennai 600 006
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 17 Aug 2009. The bench was D HARIPARANTHAMAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.