Raj Kishore Singh vs State of Bihar And Others

K. Vinod Chandran, CJ

The appellants are Basic Health Workers (BHW) under the Health Department appointed as early as in 1976; on the basis of an advertisement issued in the year 1973. Their claim in the appeal is pay parity with ANM (Auxiliary Nurse Midwife).

An earlier writ petition numbered as CWJC No. 9121 of 2021 (Rajendra Singh and Ors vs. The State of Bihar), for the very same relief was dismissed on the ground that there was not even a demand made before the competent authority; thus dis-entitling the petitioner for a mandamus. There was also an observation that the petitioners did not have any vested right to pay parity as has been held in Mani Subrat Jain Etc vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1977 SC 276. There is no judicially enforceable right or a legally protected right, available to the petitioners; which alone can bring forth a valid plea of a legal grievance, which can lead to a claim for issuance of mandamus.

The petitioners, then filed a representation before the competent authority which was rejected and the writ petition was filed against the said rejection.

The learned Single Judge found that there was no sustainable claim for pay parity considering the job responsibility of the ANMs and the academic qualifications prescribed for their appointment, which were higher than that of BHWs.

Admittedly, the appellants were appointed in the year 1976 and the basic qualification required for recruitment was 10+2 (Intermediate). A list of non-gazetted common categories was published by the State of Bihar in which the BHWs were included at Serial No. 13 under the Malaria Eradication Programme, while ANMs were listed under Item No. 17 of the Mufassil Establishment. A detailed job responsibility of ANMs was brought out with minimum academic qualification; which was 10+2 (Intermediate) with Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery Training Course. The BHWs were also directed to assist the ANMs in their job.

Hence, both by responsibility and qualification, the ANMs were on a higher pedestal. There could be no violation of equality claimed by the appellants, who are BHWs.

We find absolutely no reason to entertain the appeal and we reject the same.