1 (WPS No. 1989 of 2017) 2025:CGHC:298 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1989 of 2017 1 - Dr. Shrikant Shukla S/o B. P. Shukla, Aged About 64 Years R/o Sadar Bazar, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Mahasamund, District Hospital Premises, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 5 - Civil Surgeon-Cum- Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 6 - Joint Director (Establishment), Health Services, Directorate, Health Services, Chhattisgarh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For State :- Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART 2 (WPS No. 1989 of 2017) SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 02.01.2025 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 06.03.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Joint Director (Establishment), Directorate, Health Services, Chhattisgarh, by which the petitioner’s representation for grant of Non-Practicing allowance (NPA) has been rejected holding that he is not entitled for the same. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Joint Director, Health Services is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the petitioner’s representation by recording a finding perverse to the records, as the petitioner was holding the administrative post of District Programme Officer, Blindness Control, therefore, he is entitled for grant of the Non-Practicing allowance (NPA) and this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3. Learned State Counsel would submit that the post of District Programme Officer is not a sanctioned post under the set up issued by the State Government for the health institutions under the Directorate of Health Services and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the Non- practicing Allowance for holding the said post. Furthermore, the petitioner was the Member Secretary of 3 (WPS No. 1989 of 2017) the District Blindness Control Society, District – Mahasamund and was already getting the honorarium amount of Rs.2,000/- per month by virtue of the same. As such, the petitioner’s representation for grant of Non- Practicing allowance (NPA) has rightly been rejected and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, the State Government has issued circular dated 02.06.2011 (Annexure P/3), wherein it has been categorically mentioned at para 3 of the said circular that those Doctor/ Medical Teacher, including Director, Dean, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director, Chief Medical & Health Officer, District Family Welfare & Health Officer, Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent, Principal, Training Centre & other District Level Programmer Officer, who are holding the administrative post would not be entitled for private practice. It is the case of the petitioner, while relying upon the certificate at Annexure P/5, that since he was holding the post of District Programme Officer, Blindness Control, he is 4 (WPS No. 1989 of 2017) entitled for grant of Non-Practicing Allowance. However, in return filed by the respondent-State it has been stated that as per memo dated 18.08.2005 (Annexure R/2) issued by the State Government with respect to the set up for the health institutions under the Directorate, Health Services, the post of District Programme Officer is not a sanctioned post. Moreover, the petitioner being the Member Secretary of the District Blindness Control Society, District – Mahasamund, was already getting the honorarium amount of Rs.2,000/- per month. As such, since the petitioner is holding the post of Eye-Specialist, which is clearly a medical post and the post of District Programme Officer is not a sanctioned post under the set up issued by the State Government for the health institutions and, therefore, the petitioner’s representation for grant of Non-practicing Allowance has rightly been rejected for not being entitled for the same. 6. So far as, the equality claimed at par with one Dr. R.H. Mishra, Eye Specialist, who has been granted Non- Practicing Allowance vide order dated 11.07.2014 (Annexure P/4) is concerned, in this regard, decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of R. Muthukumar Vs. Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO 1 be 1 (2022) SCC Online SC 151 5 (WPS No. 1989 of 2017) noticed, wherein their Lordships have held in paragraph 28 as under:- “28. A principle, axiomatic in this country's constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. In Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, this court ruled that: “8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated.”” 7. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot claim negative parity and in my considered opinion his representation for grant of Non-practicing Allowance has rightly been rejected on the ground that he is not entitled for the same. As such, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!