Santosh Kumari Dalal vs Union Of India Through The Secretary

@

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicants are working as Lady Health Visitors (LHVs) in Central Government Health Service (CGHS). The pay scale fixed for that post, on the basis of the recommendations of 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC), was `4000-6000. The 6th CPC recommended Grade Pay of `2400/- for that post, and it was adopted.

The applicants claim that there existed parity of pay scale between the post of LHV and Staff Nurse Grade I and that the same has been disturbed as a sequel to the recommendations of the 5th CPC. It is stated that when a representation was made by the applicants, matter was referred to the Departmental Anomaly Committee (DAC), and though the matter progressed up to certain extent, no tangible result emerged, and on account of that, they are put to hardship.

This O.A. is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to grant the applicants, the Grade Pay of `4600/- on par with Staff Nurse Grade I from the date of implementation of the recommendations of the 6th CPC, with all consequential benefits.

The respondents filed the counter affidavit opposing the O.A. It is stated that the pay scale for the post of LHV was fixed by the 5th CPC and the same has been accepted by the Government. It is also stated that 6th CPC recommended the Grade Pay of `2400/- for the post of LHV and Grade Pay of 4600/- for the post of Staff Nurse Grade I. According to them, there is no comparison between the duties and functions attached to both the posts.

We heard Mr. Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Ashish Nischal for Mr. Rajinder Nischal, learned counsel for respondents.

The applicants contend that they are entitled to the same Grade Pay, as allowed to the post of Staff Nurse Grade I. Though it is pleaded vehemently that the pay parity existed before the recommendations of 5th CPC, the material available on record does not support this.

Be that as it may, the case of the applicants was referred to the DAC and that, in turn, has met only on two occasions, but was not able to arrive at any definite conclusion. A perusal of the Minutes of the Committee, which met on 16.11.2011, discloses that it was not even convinced about the clear discrepancy, and wanted the presentation in a self-contained note, clarifying the aspects by the Nursing Division for consideration / concurrence of Ministry of Finance. Obviously because the 7th CPC was constituted in the meanwhile, the DAC, referable to 6th CPC, became redundant. The applicants are said to have retired from service by the time the recommendations of 7th CPC became enforceable.

Howsoever convincing the arguments advanced by the applicants may be, the Tribunal has its own limitation in fixing the pay scale for any post. The only direction it can give is that the anomaly be referred to a Committee, which, in the instant case, has already taken place. If the tangible result did not emerge from the DAC, the situation cannot be helped, particularly when the applicants are no longer in the government service.

We do not find any merit in this O.A. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.