Rajpatrit Ayurvedic Chikitsak Sangh and Another vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500. The petitioners are Ayurvedic and Unani Doctors. It is contended that in various departments including Medical Department there exists a three-tier system of grant of pay scale whereas in petitioners'' department it is not followed. Shri D.K. Katare, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that on petitioners'' representation a committee was constituted which recommended for grant of said pay scale (Annexure P/4). By placing reliance on Annexure P-5, it is contended that the department took a stand that the said question is under consideration. By placing reliance on Annexure P-6 dated 30.11.1991, it is contended that the concerned Minister agreed with the claim of the petitioners. It is further contended that Annexure P-7 dated 14.8.1986 and Annexure P-10 dated 14.11.2002 show that the question of grant of said pay scale is still under consideration.

Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter is under consideration and decision needs to be taken by the respondents. No mandamus can be issued by this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the considered opinion of this Court, a particular pay scale can be granted upon various relevant considerations including nature of duties, source of recruitment, educational qualification, job nomenclature etc. This is essentially in the province of the executive to examine these aspects. The expert bodies like Pay Commission, Anomaly Committee etc. are equipped with the expertise to examine the question of equation of posts and parity in pay scale etc. The Apex Court in State of U.P. and Others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others, opined that the question of grant of pay scale must be left to the Executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts.

Considering the aforesaid, since decision on the petitioners'' claim is yet to be taken by the respondents, I deem it proper to dispose of this petition with the direction to the petitioners to submit a detailed fresh representation by enclosing relevant documents and submit it before the respondents. In turn, the respondents are directed to decide the said claim within eight months. The outcome shall be communicated to the petitioners. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Petition stands disposed of.