Nem Chand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court with the following directions: - “CWP No. 20248 of 2006 Present: Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the petitioners. This petition is disposed of with a direction to CWP No. 11135 of 2007 -4- 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.” 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: - “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.” 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 5th Pay Commission in its report. Reference is made to para 52.90 of the 5th 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 CWP No. 11135 of 2007 Government of India. -5- From the averments made in the reply, it is clear that the 5th 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. 5th 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, 6th 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: - “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 non- medical '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 CWP No. 11135 of 2007 -6- 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.” 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 5th 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 6th Pay Commission, it may not be necessary for the respondents to implement the recommendations of the 5th 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. January 07, 2010 R.S. (Permod Kohli) Judge