Prem Parkash Anand v. State Of Haryana And Others
!
"
!
#$ #
%%
!
"
!
&%
%
!" # $% &
%'
%!
&'!
(! )
# '*+,-.+/0// Prayer
)2! '! !//.3//, '! 4 !
!
(!
# /530-3/0167!+/ # 8' &!3!
& ' !/00- /00.
9! & !# # 8' &!3!
' !/00- 01 /00. !
/530-3/0167!+/1-: ! ! The Conspectus of Facts /
)
&!3;
"
=;
%% & 1> 15-/!# #!
) !!& &! <
3;
"&!<
% &&
!!
80 /005
"!# #
!'
# %=;
%
7& !& & !
'(!& 2& &!3;
!# # ! # &#!
*
01 /00. $ % & ' & !/00- % & '
!'
# !/00- ' !/00- ;
&!!
& #
& & ? @ ?# @
#
! ' &!3;
& ' &# # ' !# ! >
& !
A
& 7&# #& '
& &
'(!&!
A !
& 7 .
!(!& $ !
# ##7 &! /5 0- /016 &#' 7# '&!3;
%
& !
,
& /5 0- /016 ' ! A
& 2!! # ' ##&!
&
! # !
! # # #
Contentions On behalf of the petitioners -
B ! ! # ' & & 16 1.
( '! 4 4 $
#7 &' !#
&
/00.
4 ! ! & (!
! ! ! &!3;
& # ! !!#<"
& # #
4 &#
(!
&
# =;
%" !2!
B ! #! !'
#
& !! )
&
& 4 !
' ! !!
#
&
2!
4 ! ! !# ! !!
& ! " !
#
# #
2! '! 1/
< ! !
& !#
$ '# & 01 /00.
(!
On behalf of respondent/State
B !!
## !'
#
01 /00. & # # ! &!3;
! 9 "
! /5 0- /016 4 ! 7 &
& & & !
&
4 !! $ 80 /005 ! !
! /5 0- /016 # ! ' # ! !#
& '7 =;
%
/5 0- /016 1>
B ! 2 & # # & /5 0- /016
!7 & && 4 !
'! && /0/1& # !(!&
<#! ! 1.
4 ! #!
& &&#!
# &
# ' &
7! !
!! & 1,
B ! # 2!# %A !
'! /.
/0/8
'
C ->>8D->>, /016 7'! # & &!"
" (!
(!
& (!
4! ! & (!
& # & 2!# 1-
4
! ! !
&
Analysis
)'! !
#
! # ! The primary issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner, who retired from service on 30.09.2009, can claim the benefit of the third Assured Career Progression (ACP) retrospectively from 01.01.2006 on the basis of the instructions dated 29.08.2014, which admittedly grant such benefit prospectively. /0
! !'
#
&+ # # ! #!7 & & ##!! )' &
& & !&
/1
4 ! ! !' !/00- &!3;
! specific cadre &' )# ' #&
! & & 9 "
! /5 0- /016 ) ! & ! !
& ) A !# 01 /00.! &!# & 7
! &
//
9! '! ! /005! !
! /5 0- /016 < # # ' &!3;
) !# &
!
/8
) #!
&!!
!
!&
& '!#!(! #
/6
) A
&
<
& &2!# !
'! State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt 2023 (15) SCC 257. 4 2!# 7 '! # & &!"
"
(!
equal pay for equal work
) !
'!#
(!
# !
A
#
!
43. As seen from paragraph 41 above, Allopathy doctors are required to perform emergency duties and to provide trauma care. By the very nature of the science that they practice and with the advancement of science and modern medical technology, the emergency duty that Allopathy doctors are capable of performing and the trauma care that they are capable of providing, cannot be performed by Ayurved doctors.
44. It is also not possible for Ayurved doctors to assist surgeons performing complicated surgeries, while MBBS doctors can assist. We shall not be understood to mean as though one system of medicine is superior to the other. It is not our mandate nor within our competence to assess the relative merits of these two systems of medical sciences. As a matter of fact, we are conscious that the history of Ayurveda dates back to several centuries.
54. Therefore, even while recognizing the importance of Ayurved doctors and the need to promote alternative/indigenous systems of medicine, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that both categories of doctors are certainly not performing equal work to be entitled to equal pay. Hence, Issue No.2 has to be answered in favour of the appellant4State and against the respondents.
/>
4 ! ! A #! !16 1. '!&!
!&#
/.
)2 & &
) & !# # ! /5 0- /016
'! && /0/1 )
!7 &
/,
4 & #
!
#
7!
) 2! 7 # ! ! 4 '! # ' & & !!
/-
In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, (2007) 4 SCC 737, 7'! ?'!
!7 #! &
& ! 7! &7! ! ) 2! 7 # & $ ! # E
'!
& !&
& & '! & #! !#!
B# & & ! & !2 2! @
14. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. Nor are Courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Conclusion /5
4 ## &'!
) !'
#!#! & /5 0- /016 & !
&
#&
#
&
%!
Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No