Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1283 (RAJ)

K. K. Garg v. State of Rajasthan

2023-07-04

DINESH MEHTA

body2023
ORDER : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that the respondents have not granted his non-practicing allowance while he was working as Additional C.M.H.O. 2. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 17.01.2014 passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Saroj Gupta v. State and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10410/2010. 3. Mr. Ranka, learned counsel for the respondent-State is not in a position to distinguish the facts of the present case from the facts in the case of Dr. Saroj (supra). He however argued that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly and sought to challenge the order dated 12.09.2008 after a delay of almost seven years. 4. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that the order dated 12.09.2008 is an order issued by the State Government whereby non-practicing allowance has been granted but the rights of the Additional C.M.H.O. were excluded and that such issue has been set at rest by this Court by judgment dated 17.01.2014 in case of Dr. Saroj Gupta (supra). He submitted that the petitioner and other candidates were awaiting decision of this Court and when the judgment was delivered in January, 2014, the petitioner approached this Court in July, 2015 and therefore, the petition in hand not be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 5. In the case of Dr. Saroj Gupta (supra), this Court has held thus: “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order dated 12.09.08 in which the non-clinical and non-practicing allowance has been allowed by the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan to various posts including the post of C.M.H.O on full time C.M.H.Os and Additional C.M.H.O, Jaipur and Udaipur and the post of Additional C.M.H.O Sriganganagar is not included. In the opinion of this Court, in a particular district, if any doctor is posted as Additional C.M.H.O. gets the benefit of non-practicising and non-clinical allowance under the order dated 12.09.2008 issued by the Government then how Additional C.M.H.O working in all the districts of Rajasthan are not entitled for non-practicing allowance. In the opinion of this Court, in a particular district, if any doctor is posted as Additional C.M.H.O. gets the benefit of non-practicising and non-clinical allowance under the order dated 12.09.2008 issued by the Government then how Additional C.M.H.O working in all the districts of Rajasthan are not entitled for non-practicing allowance. The respondents cannot discriminate other doctors working on the post of Additional C.M.H.Os in other districts because there is no nexus and reason to deny the said benefit, therefore, the order of the Finance Department for granting non-practicing allowance only to the Additional C.M.H.Os of Jaipur and Udaipur is totally discriminatory because it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If a Doctor is working on an equal post in Jaipur and Udaipur district, gets the benefit of nonclinical and non-practicing allowance that cannot be denied to the Additional C.M.H.O of other district because there is no rational behind it. There is no expertise provided for posting as Additional C.M.H.O at Jaipur and Udaipur, therefore, the denial of NPA to the petitioner for the period he worked on the post of Additional C.M.H.O, Family Welfare, Sriganganagar is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of non-practicing allowance to the petitioner for the period in which he was posted as Additional C.M.H.O, Sriganganagar within three months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order.” 6. Since this Court has already held the issue in favour of Additional C.M.H.O, this Court is not inclined to non-suit the petitioner only on the ground of delay particularly when the decision of this Court in the case of Saroj Gupta (supra) has been rendered in January, 2014 and the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2015. 7. This Court is inclined to allow the writ petition in light of the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Saroj Gupta (supra). 8. The present writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to grant non-practicing allowance to the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner shall file a representation indicating therein his claim for the non-practicing allowance for the period for which he is entitled. Saroj Gupta (supra). 8. The present writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to grant non-practicing allowance to the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner shall file a representation indicating therein his claim for the non-practicing allowance for the period for which he is entitled. The respondent No. 2-The Deputy Secretary (Administration) shall consider the same in accordance with law and make payment of non-practicing allowance to the petitioner within a period of three months of receiving the representation. 9. In case, if any of the petitioner's grievance still persists, he shall be free to take legal remedies in accordance with law.