State Cannot Deny Pay Parity Of Veterinarians With Medicos Just Because They Deal With Animals: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The observations were made by a bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Mr. Justice Virender Singh, while hearing a bunch of petitions challenging cabinet decision of not granting 4 tier pay scale to the petitioner veterinary officers.

The petitioners, holding Bachelor’s degrees in Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (B.V.Sc. & AH) had been appointed as Veterinary Officers on contract basis whereafter their services got regularized.

In consonance with the 4 tier pay scale guidelines formulated by the Finance department the length of service of each officer was to be determined on the basis of completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service counted from the initial date of regularization in service.

However, the respondent-State while counting such service had ignored the service rendered by the petitioners prior to regularization on contract basis unlike their counterparts, who fall within the categories of H.P. Health Services Class-I (General List) and H.P. Health Services Class-I (Dental). This in turn had constrained the petitioners to file these writ petitions.

In their petition, the petitioners prayed for directions upon the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioners on contract basis before their respective regularization be counted for the purpose of grant of benefit under 4, 9,14 years (Assured Carrier Progression Scheme) pay scale on the pattern the same has been extended to other Medical Officers (General), Medical Officers (Dental) and Veterinary Officers (Regular).

Per contra, respondents submitted that the contractual services of the petitioners (Veterinary Officers appointed on contract basis) on the analogy of Medical Officers (appointed on contract basis) in the Health and Family Welfare Department for the purpose of granting 4-tier pay scale cannot be counted as the petitioners are dealing with animals, whereas the Doctors of Health Department are dealing with humans where stakes are much higher and the duties and responsibilities are round the clock and thus are not equivalent.

After considering the rival contentions the bench referred toDr. Arun Sirkeck and Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided 2009, when this Court had observed that that the Veterinary Officers appointed on contract basis cannot be discriminated by the State by not counting the ad-hoc service at par with the Medical Officers serving in the Himachal Pradesh Health Services Class-I (Generalist) and (Dental) and accordingly, the State had been directed to count the services of the Veterinary Officers on adhoc basis for all intents and purposes.

Observing that since this court has already recognized parity between MBBS doctors and Veterinary Officers in the matters of counting of ad-hoc service and also grant of NPA to the Veterinary Officers at par with the MBBS doctors, the bench decimated the denial of grant of 4-tier pay scale to the Veterinary Officers that too on the flimsy ground that the petitioners are dealing with animals and the doctors serving in the Health and Family Welfare Department are dealing with humans.

Pointing out to the discrimination meted out by the state by denial of due benefits to the petitioners the court said that we have no hesitation in concluding that the respondent-State while denying the benefit of 4-tier pay scale to the petitioners from the initial date of appointment at par with the medical officers have indulged in hostile discrimination and thereby violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the impugned decision taken by the cabinet rejecting the claim of the petitioners was quashed and set aside. The respondent-State is directed to count the services rendered by the petitioners contract basis before their respective regularization for the purpose of benefit under 4-tier pay scale on the same pattern as has been extended to the Medical Officers (Generalist) and (Dental) and Veterinary Officers (Regular), the bench concluded.

Case Title: Pankaj Kumar Lakhanpal & ors Vs State of HP & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 10

Click Here To Read/Download Order