MULTIPURPOSE HEALTH WORKERS ASSOCIATION & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

A     MULTIPURPOSE HEALTH WORKERS ASSOCIATION & ORS.
                                           v.
                       STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

                                    MAY 7, 1996

B                    [G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)

           Service Law :

          Equal pay for equal work-Multipwpose Health Workers-Higher pay
C   scale of Rs. 1200-204o-Granted to holders of other technical posts w.e.f
    1-5-1991>-Whereas multipurpose health w01kers granted higher pay scale
    w.e.f 1.1.1994-Validity of-In absence of infonnation about nature and
    quality of duties of other holders of technical posts, equalisation of pay could
    not be asked for.

D         Higher pay scalt?-Date of commencement of-Director General of
    Health Service recommended grant of higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 to
    Multipurpose Health Workers w.e.f 1.5.199(}-But Govemment gave higher
    pay scale w.e.f 1.1.1994---Held : recommendation of Director General of
                                                                                       -
    Health Services had only pursuasive value and not binding on the Govem-
E   ment-Decision of Government not arbitrary but rational.

          Higher pay scale-grant of-To Multipurpose Health Workers w.e.f
    l.5.199()-J3y virtue of notification dated 26. 7.1991-Held : The Multipurpose
    Health Workers did not receive the training contemplated by the notifica-
F   lion-Hence, not entitled to higher pay scale w.e.f 1.5.1990.

           The appellant-association's members were Multipurpose Health
    Workers. The appellants' claim for higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 with
    effect from 1.5.1990 was rejected by the State Government. However, the
    said higher pay scale was made available with effect from 1.1.1994. The
G   appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming the said higher
    pay scale with effect from 1.5.1990 which was dismissed. Being aggrieved,
    the appellants preferred the present appeal. On behalf of the appellants it
    was contended that the notification dated 26.7.1991 of the State Govern-
    ment raising the pay scales of "some technical posts' to Rs. 1200-2040
H   itself made it effective from 1.5.1990; that since other holders of technical
                                          484
     MULTIPURPOSE HEALTII WORKERS ASSN. v. SfATE [HANSARIA, J.]          485


posts were given the aforesaid pay scale with effect from 1.5.1990; there       A
existed no cogent reason to deny the same to the appellants who discharged
the same function as those holders of technical posts; and that the State's
Director General of Health Services had taken the view that the training
imparted by the Department to the appellants was ec1uivalent to the one
received in the !Tis.                                                           B
      On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the notification
had no application to the appellants since they did not possess the
qualification of "IT! Certificate/Diploma from Polytechnic" prescribed by
the State Government notification.
                                                                                c
        Dismissing the appeal, this Court

       HELD : 1.1. The Multipurpose Health Workers do not possess IT!
Certificate/Diploma from any Polytechnic and had not received the train-
ing of which the notification dated 26.7.1991 speaks of. They are, therefore,   D
not entitled to the revised pay scale with effect from 1.5.1990 by the force
of the notification. [486-F, H, 487-C]

      1.2. Though it is correct that the Director General of Health Services
strongly recommended the case of the appellants his view only has a
pursuasive value and is not binding on the Government. Moreover, in the         E
absence of information about the nature and quality of duties of other
holders of technical posts who were given the higher pay scale from
1.5.1990 it is not possible to. ask for equalisation of the pay scale of the
appellants with the concerned technical post holders. [487-G-H]
                                                                                F
      1.3. The decision by the Government to fix the revised pay scale of
the appellants from 1.5.1990 cannot be said to be in any way arbitrary; it
is indeed rational. [488-B]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7950 of                 G
1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.91 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in C.W.P. No. 2572 of 1991.

        Pradeep Gupta and K.K. Mohan for the Appellants.                        H
    486                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996[ SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal for Ms. Indu Malhotra, B.B. Sawhney, Ms.
    Indira Sawhney and Deepak Dewan, for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          HANSARIA, J. Special leave granted.
B
          2. The appellant -. association's members are Multipurpose Health
    Workers of Haryana. The only question we have been called upon to
    decide is the whether the higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 lo these
    workers to be made available to them with effect from l.5.1990, instead of
c   1.1.1994?

          3. The appellants have laid their claim for the earlier date on lwo
    grounds: (1) the notification dated 26.7.1991 of the State Government
    raising the pay scales of "some technical posts" to Rs. 1200-2040 itself
    demanded the higher pay scale from 1.5.1990, as the same is the effective
D   date of the notification; and (2) other holders of technical posts having
    been given the aforesaid pay scale with effect from 1.5.1990, there exists
    no cogent reason to deny same to the Multipurpose Health Workers who
    discharge the same function as those to whom the higher pay scale was
    given from 1.5.J 990.
E
           4. The case of State on the other hand, is that the aforesaid notifica-
    tion in terms has no application to the Multipurpose Health Workers
    because the qualification ''prescribed" by the notification is ;,!TI Certifi-
    cate/Diploma from Polytechnic". There is no dispute that the workers al
    hand do not possess IT! Certificates-Diploma from any Polytechnic. The
F   case of the appellants, however, is that the certificate course of the !TI is
    of one year's duration and the minimum educational qualification is
    Matriculation, whereas the training period of the Multipurpose Health
    Workers is of 1-1/2 year's duration or 1 year depending upon the sex of
    the incumbents, and their minimun1 educational qualification being also
G   matriculation, the training imparted by the department to them has to be
    taken as equal to that one received in the !Tis. The State's Director
    General of Health Services has taken this view as would appear from his
    letter No. 31/l Spl. MCH-93/5791 dated 4.11.1993. One thing, however, is
    apparent that the concerned workers had not received the training of which
H   the notification dated 26.7.1991 speaks of.
     MULTIPURPOSE HEALlH WORKERS ASSN. 1•. STATE [HANSARJA, J.)        4S7

       5. The Slate counsel brought to our notice the decision of the Punjab A
and Haryana High Court taking the view that the nature, content and
quality of the course prescribed for lhe job of Multipurpose Health Worker
is different from the course of an !Tl/Polytechnic trained persons. Being
of this view, the writ petition filed by the appellants themselves before the
High Court claiming equality with others technical workers was dismissed, B
which came to be accepted, as this Court had not been approached making
any grievance regarding the view taken by High Court. .

      6. In the aforesaid premises, we entertain no doubt that the Multi-
purpose Health Workers are not entitled to the· revised pay scale with
effect from l .5.1990 by the force of the notification.                        c
      7. In so far as the secortd ground is concerned, we have again been
referred by the learned counsel for the appellants to the view of the
Director General of Health Services as expressed in the aforesaid letter.
Though it is correct that the Director General of Health Services strongly     D
recommended the case of the appellants in his aforesaid communication,
the State Government did not accept the same and decided to revise the.
pay scale with effect from 1.1.1994, as would appear from the communica-
tion of the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to the Government,
Finance Department, dated 21.3.1994 <!ddressed to the Director General         E
of Health Services by referring to his letter of 4.11.1993. As. the decision
was taken by the Government on 11th March , 1994, the fixing of the date
as 1.1.1994 to give effect to the revised pay scale cannot be said to be in
any way arbitrary; it is indeed rational.

      8. We do not, however, propose to decide the appeal merely on the
                                                                               F
basis ·of the decision of the Government to make available the higher pay
scale from 11.1.1994, though the same has lo be kept in mind, because the
Director Generals' view has only persuasive value, it is not binding on the
Government. What is more important is that though the Director General
mentioned about various work done by the Health Workers-immunisation,          G
making of blood pads, engagement in family welfare programme and
attending to minor ailment - we do not know about the nature and quality
of duties of other holders of technical posts who were given the higher pay
scale from 1.5.1990. Without this information being available to us, we
cannot ask for equalisation of the pay of the Health Workers with the          H
    488                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   concerned technical post holders.

          9. Thus, there is no cogent reason to accept the contention of the
    appellants to make the revised pay scale effective from 1.5.1990. The
B   appeal is, therefore, dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
    we leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.

    v.s.s.                                                   Appeal dismissed.