- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15019 WP No. 45651 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 45651 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. H. REBECCA NESAMANI WIFE OF B. JOHN WILSON AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.33, PLAM PEAK LAYOUT, OPP. TO N.R.I LAYOUT, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 016 2. SRI. S.R. VENU S/O LATE S.N. RAMACHANDER AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.64, N.M.LANE, BORE BANK ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU-560 016. 3. MISS. SUDHAMANI H., DAUGHTER OF HINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, GANIGANURU VILLAGE (PO) YELANDUR THALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-560 016 4. MISS. JYOTHI M., DAUGHTER OF MAHADEVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, MELLAHALLI, HONNUR POST, YELANDUR THALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-560016 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. AVANI CHOKSHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.J. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15019 WP No. 45651 of 2017 AND: 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU. 2. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 011 3. THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA HOSPITAL, POST BAG NO.4, HAZARATH KAMBAI POSH ROAD BENGALURU-560 051 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. S.R.DODWAD, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI. PRASHANTH B.R., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE SECOND AND THE THIRD RESPONDENTS GOVERNMENT TO TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION INCLUDING FORMULATING A POLICY FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PAYMENT OF SALARIES TO THE PETITIONERS WORKING IN THE UFWC RUN BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCALE FIXED AND MADE AVAILABLE BY THE SECOND AND THE THIRD RESPONDENT GOVERNMENT TO ALL THE STAFF OF UFWC AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15019 WP No. 45651 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take all necessary action including formulating a policy for implementing the payment of salaries to them in accordance with the scale fixed so that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 could take steps for reimbursement. The petitioners have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.3 to make a claim from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and a direction to the respondent No.1 to reimburse the salary claimed and to direct the respondents to pay their salary. 2. The petitioners contend that under the National Health Mission, the respondent No.2 had formulated various schemes to promote mother and child health and one amongst them was the Urban Family Welfare Centre ('UFWC/Centre' for short). As per this scheme, the respondent No.1 would receive amounts as grant-in-aid from the respondent No.2 which would be released to voluntary organizations, who had applied for establishment of the UFWC throughout the State of Karnataka. These voluntary organizations on being allotted UFWC were - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15019 WP No. 45651 of 2017 entitled to recruit staff for the running of the UFWC as per the qualification and experience prescribed by the respondent No.2. The scales of pay of these staff was also pre-fixed for each category and was fully funded by the Government of India. The respondent No.3 - Church of South India Hospital (henceforth referred to as 'the Hospital' for brevity) was also one such voluntary Organization who was allotted to run a UFWC by the Government of India vide Order dated 26.06.1973. The respondent No.3 - Hospital was running the Centre ever since the year 1973 till the date of filing this petition. The petitioners contend that they were recruited by the respondent No.3 for the sake of running the Centre as they possessed all the requisite qualification and experience. They contend that the scale of pay received by various staff working in different Centres run by different voluntary Organizations were uniformly fixed without any discrimination by the respondent No.2 and was released to the voluntary organizations for disbursement to the staff working in the Centres. Thus, it is contended that all staff working in the UFWCs excepting the staff working in the respondent No.3 - Hospital were receiving the same pay as fixed by the Government of India / respondent No.2 and as - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15019 WP No. 45651 of 2017 provided by it. Only in so far as the staff working in the respondent No.3 - Hospital, there was discrimination and they were receiving about 40% of what others were receiving even though they were performing the same nature of duties and possessed the same qualification and experience prescribed for the posts. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.3 initially paid the amounts as fixed by the Government in the case of petitioner No.1. However, due to the change in the persons managing the respondent No.3 - Hospital, there was a deliberate disparity in the scale of pay paid to the petitioners and the scale of pay paid to the staff members appointed by the respondent No.3 - Hospital. The petitioners contend that the difference of salary between them and the employees working in different Centres became wider and wider by the day. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.3 was refusing to pay and claim the full salary as per the scale of pay fixed and provided by the Government of India as aid. The petitioners contend that after 1982, when the respondent No.3 - Hospital was taken over by a different Management, the salaries paid were reduced substantially. When the petitioner No.1 joined UFWC in the year 1981, she was paid full salary - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15019 WP No. 45651 of 2017 with relatively small difference, however, after 01.09.1986, her salary was reduced and the difference in the salary as per the grant-in-aid scale was huge. In so far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, it is contended that she joined UFWC in the year 2005 and was paid the same salary as the other staff in other Centres. However, from April 2006, she was also granted far less salary than what she was paid earlier. Petitioners, therefore, submitted a representation to the respondent No.1 and marked a copy to the respondent No.3 on 21.04.2016. The Chief Accounts Officer of the respondent No.1 addressed a letter dated 06.05.2016 calling for an explanation from the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 submitted his explanation on 10.06.2016 stating that they were paying salary to the staff working in the UFWC, Cox Town, on par with the salary paid to their hospital staff and hence, they did not pay the salary as per the scale fixed by the Government and provided under the aid. However, they contended that the issue was placed before the Working Committee for their approval. The petitioners, therefore, are before this Court contending that they were eligible for the scale of pay as determined by the Government of India which was paid to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15019 WP No. 45651 of 2017 them earlier but was later reduced without notice and without any justification. They contend that all the other staff in the other UFWCs. are paid a sum of Rs.45,800/- as against a sum of Rs.19,515/- paid to them and therefore, there is a shortfall Rs.26,285/- every month. Therefore, they pray that suitable directions be issued to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take all appropriate action for paying the salaries as per the pay scale prescribed by the Government of India. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above contentions and submitted that once the petitioners were granted a scale of pay by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the same could not have been reduced to their disadvantage. She also contends that similar employees working in different UFWCs were paid much higher salary which was equivalent to the State scale. On the contrary, petitioners are being paid the pay scale of the staff of the respondent No.3 - Hospital. Therefore, she contends that suitable directions be issued to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to grant the petitioners the same scale as is granted to the staff in the other UFWCs in the State. 4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.2, which has stated inter alia that it plays a supportive role - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15019 WP No. 45651 of 2017 in building capacity of the State / Union Territories for providing health care services. However, it contends that it is not involved in the implementation of the scheme, but gets the scheme implemented through Agencies appointed by the State Government. In so far as the present writ petition is concerned, it is contended that the Urban Family Welfare Centre Scheme was first established in the first five year plan and the same has been expanded or reorganized for its continuation. The Central Government supports the Urban Family Welfare Centre schemes by releasing funds to the State through Treasury route and after the funds are released, their utilization is the sole responsibility of the State and is subject to audit by the State Agencies. It has contended that it is not related in any way with the matters relating to recruitment, seniority, resignations, retrenchment, retirement, adjustment, redeployment, gratuity, terminal or retirement benefit and other service conditions including administrative matters in respect of the employees of the State Governments or voluntary organizations engaged by the State and participating in Family Welfare Scheme. It has also referred to a judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Dr. T.Renuka and Others v. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15019 WP No. 45651 of 2017 Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and others [Writ Petition (Civil) No.9063/2011], to contend that the petitioners cannot make any claim for equal pay for equal work. It is claimed that no allegation is made against the respondent No.2 in the writ petition and no reliefs are sought for against the respondent No.2. 5. The respondent No.3 - Medical Superintendent of the Hospital has filed an affidavit pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 24.06.2019. Para No.4 of the affidavit is relevant and the same is extracted below: "4. I state that the 3rd Respondent is running an Urban Family Welfare and Health Centre at Cox Town since 1975, and this is a Non-Governmental Organization. The Urban Family Welfare Centre, Coxtown is only a Project and hence the Willingness Certificate was submitted to Government every year to run the Centre. The staff are appointed by the Hospital and deputed to Health Centre at Cox Town. The salaries paid to the staff are reimbursed as grant-in-aid to Hospital. Initially the staff have been paid as per Government Scale for few years, as per the records. Later on the staff were paid salaries as per Hospital Scale to avoid the disparity in salaries between Hospital staff and Cox Town staff and the same was reimbursed as grant-in-aid by the Department of Directorate of Urban Family Welfare - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15019 WP No. 45651 of 2017 and Health Centre. The Hospital gets the grant-in-aid by submitting the annual budget before the financial year. The grant-in-aid is paid in four instalments and the annual budget does not include Provident Fund and Gratuity." He has also deposed as follows: "6. I state that for payment of Salaries, Budget Estimate would be prepared based on Regular Salaries paid to Staff which includes Basic, DA, HRA, CCA, yearly increments etc., Hence P.F. and Gratuity facilities were provided to the staff by the Hospital. As per the Budget Estimate, the Grant-in-aid was received and the same was disbursed to the staff." As regards the procedure followed for getting the grant-in-aid from the respondent Nos.1 and 2, he has stated as follows: "7. I state that the following procedures were followed in getting the Grant-in-Aid:- 1. Before the month of April, Hospital will submit Budget Estimate (Salaries as per the Hospital Scale), Willingness Certificate, Staff Position and letter regarding the Government Order to run the Project. 2. Based on the Budget Estimate (Salaries as per the Hospital Scale), the Hospital will receive the Grant-in-aid in four instalments. When each Instalment is sanctioned, the Hospital will receive Official Memorandum regarding the sanction and Hospital will submit a Bond along with - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15019 WP No. 45651 of 2017 agreement on non-judicial Stamp Paper to the Project Director, District Health and F.W.Service, Anand Rao Circle, Bangalore for the amount sanctioned along with Pre Receipt. 3. After submission of the above documents, the Hospital will receive the Cheque." In so far as the payment of excess salary to the petitioners, than what was paid earlier, he states as follows: "8. I state the Staff were posted or deputed from the Hospital to the Coxtown Centre. To avoid the disparities of Salaries between Hospital and the Coxtown Centre, the then Administration has not opted for the Government Scale for the Staff or it was not a subject during those periods. Staff accepted the Hospital Scale when their Appointment Letters were given. The Urban Family Welfare Centre, Coxtown is only a Project and hence the Willingness Certificate was submitted every year to run the Centre." He further contends that as per the grant-in-aid received for the year 2014-15, the petitioners were granted the hospital scale. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has filed a memo dated 19.07.2019 (filed on 20.07.2019) and enclosed - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15019 WP No. 45651 of 2017 therewith a letter dated 17.07.2019 addressed by the in-charge Medical Superintendent of Church of South India Hospital/respondent No.3 to the Chief Accounts Officer of the respondent No.1 stating therein that the petitioners are not entitled for Government pay scale as payment of such scale would result in disparity between the employees employed by it in its hospital who were paid a hospital scale evolved by it. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submits that the petitioners were not selected for the scheme but were selected by the respondent No.3 and deputed at the scheme and therefore, they are only entitled to hospital scale and not the State scale. 8. It is clear from a perusal of the contentions urged by the respondent No.2 and the affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 - Medical Superintendent that one fact is certain namely, that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were earlier paid the State scale and the respondent No.3 - Hospital was reimbursed by the respondent No.1 after the respondent No.2 granted funds for such reimbursement. If the petitioners were granted the benefit of a higher pay scale for a certain while, the respondent No.3 could not have reduced it to the disadvantage - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15019 WP No. 45651 of 2017 of the petitioners without notice to them and without hearing them. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not disputed the fact that similar staff in various other Centres were paid the State pay scale while the petitioners were paid the scale fixed by the respondent No.3 - Hospital to its staff. Therefore, the claim of the respondent No.3 - Hospital that payment of the State scale to the petitioners would result in disparity to its own employees does not appeal to this Court as all other employees in other Centres were paid the State scale and there is no reason why the petitioners were deprived of the said benefit. In that view of the matter, the petitioners are entitled to the State scale of pay. If the respondent No.3 - Hospital is concerned about the disparity in the State scale and its own scale, it must have closed down the UFWC at the earliest. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondent No.3 is directed to make appropriate claim before the respondent No.1 for the State scale of pay in so far as the petitioners are concerned for the period during which they were employed and the respondent No.1 is directed to escalate the same before the respondent No.2 for clearance and payment / reimbursement to the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15019 WP No. 45651 of 2017 shall take steps for payment of the amount so received from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the petitioners. It is needless to mention that this benefit is available to the petitioners from the date they were deprived of the State scale till the date when the Urban Family Welfare Centre was closed down. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11