IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 25617 of 1998(Y)
1. G.SOMASUNDARAN PILLAI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :06/03/2007
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
--------------------------
O.P.NO. 25617 OF 1998
-------------------------
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF MARCH, 2007
JUDGMENT
The 1st petitioner is the General Secretary of the Insurance
Medical Services Staff Union and the petitioners 2,3 and 4 are
Insurance Medical Officers Gr.II (Ayurveda) and Insurance Medical
Officers Gr.II (Homoeo) in the Insurance Medical Services Department
of the Government of Kerala. They are, in this original petition voicing
a grievance of discrimination between the Assistant Insurance Medical
Officers(Allopathy) on the one hand and the Assistant Medical Officers
(Ayurveda & Homoeo) on the other hand, in the matter of granting of
10 years’ and 20 years’ higher grade for Assistant Insurance Medical
officers. The petitioners would contend that there is parity in scale of
pay at the time of entry into service for the Assistant Medical Officers
(Allopahty) and Asst. Medical Officers (Ayurveda & Homoeo) and
therefore the refusal to grant them 10 years’ and 20 years’ higher
grade as applicable to the Asst. Medical Officers (Allopathy) is arbitrary
and discriminatory. Their representations in this regard, Ext.P4 has
been rejected by Ext.P5 order on the ground that there is vast
difference among the three systems of medicine and fundamental
difference in the curriculum and qualification. The petitioners are
O.P.No.25617/98 2
challenging Ext.P5 order in this original petition and also seek a
consequential relief for a direction to the respondents to extend the
benefit of grade promotion to Asst. Medical Officers (Homoeo) and
Asst. Medical Officers (Ayurveda) as in the case of the Asst. Medical
Officers (Allopahty).
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as
also the learned Government pleader. Although no counter affidavit
has been filed by the respondents, the Government pleader would
support Ext.P5 order on the reasons mentioned therein. No doubt,
the three systems of medicine have difference curriculum but now-
a- days, the basic qualification for admission to the degree courses
for all the three systems of medicine is the same. Admittedly, the
scales of pay at the time of entry into service of Insurance Medical
Officers in all the three systems is the same. In fact the Insurance
Medical Officers have better avenues of promotion as Deputy
Director and Director, which are not available to Asst. Insurance
Medical Officers (Homoeo & Ayurveda). Since granting of higher
grades is especially for the purpose of giving some relief to those
employees, who have been stagnating in the same scale of pay for
years together, I am of opinion that the attitude of the Government
in Ext.P5 order is certainly arbitrary and discriminatory. In this
connection, it is also to be noted that in the Homoeo Medical
Department and the Ayurveda Medical Department, Medical Officers
O.P.No.25617/98 3
do get higher grades on completion of 10 years’ and 20 years’ like
other Government servants. When all other Government servants
also do get this 10 years’ and 20 years’ higher grades, I am at a
loss to understand why Asst. Insurance Medical Officer (Homoe &
Ayurveda) alone should be treated differently. As such the
petitioners have made out a very good case for consideration of
their claim for granting of higher grades like any other Government
servants, particularly Asst. Insurance Medical Officer (Allopathy).
3. In this connection I note that the designation of Asst.
Insurance Medical Officers in Insurance Medical Services
Department has been changed. In any event, in the above
circumstances, I am not satisfied that Ext.P5 order is sustainable.
Accordingly the same is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to
reconsider the matter in the light of observations made herein
before and pass fresh orders in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
O.P.No.25617/98 4