Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010013772021 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/522/2021 DR. MD SAROWARA KAYNATH MOLLAH S/O DOSTAGIR GOLAM MOSTAFA MOLLAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUTARPARA, PS MATIA, DIST GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPT. DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6 2:THE STATE HEALTH SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON CHIEF SECRETARY ASSAM DISPURM GHY 6 3:THE MISSION DIRECTOR NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION SAIKAI COMMERCIALCOMPLEX GS ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI 5 4:THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION NIRMAN BHAWAN NEW DELHI 11001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MD. M H CHOUDHURY,MS F INTAZ,K U AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH AND F W, Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 01.05.2025 Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Bora, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Health & Family Welfare Department. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction from this Hon’ble Court to set aside the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by respondent no. 3, whereby the petitioner’s claim for arrear pay with effect from 01.04.2012 in the revised pay scale was rejected. The petitioner further prays for a direction to the respondents to revise his pay for the period from 03.08.2012 to 31.03.2017 at the rate of ₹30,500/- per month. 3. The petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Epidemiologist pursuant to the order dated 27.07.2012. He joined the said post in Baksa district after execution of the contract agreement. The terms and conditions of his employment are governed by the said agreement. At the time of joining, the petitioner was paid a monthly remuneration of ₹22,000/-. 4. The Ayurvedic Graduate Doctors who were engaged as Medical Officers (Contractual) under the National Health Mission (NHM) were granted a revised remuneration of ₹30,500/- per month with effect from 01.04.2012. However, similarly placed Homoeopathic Graduate Doctors working as Contractual Medical Officers were paid only ₹22,000/- per month. Aggrieved by this disparity, a group of Homoeopathic Doctors filed WP(C) No. 426/2013 seeking a direction to the competent authority to extend to them the same enhanced remuneration of Page No.# 3/7 ₹30,500/- per month, on the ground that the nature of duties performed by Homoeopathic and Ayurvedic Medical Officers was identical. 5. This Hon’ble Court, by its judgment dated 24.05.2016, directed the State respondents to fix the remuneration of Homoeopathic Medical Officers at par with that of Ayurvedic Medical Officers under the NHM. Pursuant to the said judgment, another group of Homoeopathic Graduate Doctors, including the present petitioner, filed WP(C) No. 1502/2018 praying for similar relief. That writ petition was also disposed of in similar terms. However, the fact that the present petitioner was not a Homoeopathic Medical Officer, but was serving as an Epidemiologist, was not specifically brought to the notice of the Court in the said petition. 6. Consequently, though the petitioner was one of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 1502/2018, he was denied the benefit of enhanced remuneration on the ground that he did not hold the post of Homoeopathic Medical Officer. Thereafter, by a subsequent order dated 23.03.2018, the State authorities extended the benefit of enhanced remuneration to several other contractual posts, including that of Epidemiologist. Insofar as the petitioner’s post of Epidemiologist is concerned, his remuneration was accordingly enhanced to ₹30,500/- per month. However, the said benefit was granted to him only with effect from 01.04.2017, thereby denying him arrears for the earlier period starting from 01.04.2012. 7. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that although his salary has been enhanced to ₹30,500/-, thereby bringing it at par with that of the Contractual Medical Officers (Homeopathic), the said enhancement has been made effective only from 01.04.2017. In contrast, the similarly placed Medical Officers (Homeopathic) were granted the benefit of the revised remuneration with effect from 01.04.2012. This forms the core grievance of the petitioner—that despite having been granted parity in pay, the benefit has been made effective from a later Page No.# 4/7 date without any reasonable justification. The petitioner contends that once the authorities have recognized parity in remuneration, there exists no rational basis for denying him the benefit from the same date as was extended to other similarly placed officers. Aggrieved by this arbitrary and discriminatory treatment, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, direction, or order to redress his grievance. 8. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard, and the pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. The short question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether, once the salary payable to the post of Medical Officer (Homeopathic) and that of Epidemiologist has been brought at par, the effective date of such enhanced remuneration—granted to the Medical Officers (Homeopathic) w.e.f. 01.04.2012—should also be extended to those holding the post of Epidemiologist, including the present petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that although the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 1502/2018, seeking extension of the same benefit as granted by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2016 in WP(C) No. 426/2013—wherein pay parity was directed between Medical Officers (Homeopathic) and Medical Officers (Ayurvedic)—the fact that the petitioner was not engaged as a Medical Officer but was serving in the capacity of an Epidemiologist was not brought to the notice of the Court at the time when WP(C) No. 1502/2018 was disposed of by order dated 19.03.2018. The benefit granted in that case was thus extended to the petitioners therein based on their identical roles with those in WP(C) No. 426/2013, which did not explicitly include the petitioner’s distinct position as an Epidemiologist. 10. The only ground urged before this Court is that, since the salary drawn by the Medical Officer (Homeopathic) and the Epidemiologist has been brought to the Page No.# 5/7 same level and the benefit of enhanced pay has also been conferred upon the post of Epidemiologist, the effective date of such enhanced pay should likewise be the same—i.e., with effect from 01.04.2012, as in the case of Medical Officers (Homeopathic), instead of 01.04.2017. However, no material has been placed before this Court to establish that the nature of duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Epidemiologist is identical and similar to that of a Medical Officer (Homeopathic), so as to justify parity in the effective date of enhanced remuneration. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also fairly submitted that the order dated 19.03.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 1502/2018, which had been filed by a group of Medical Officers (Homeopathic) along with the present petitioner and disposed of by passing similar directions as those issued in the earlier order dated 24.05.2016 in WP(C) No. 426/2013, cannot be construed to have conferred any benefit upon the petitioner. This is for the reason that the petitioner was not employed as a Medical Officer (Homeopathic), but as an Epidemiologist, and the benefit extended in those cases by orders of this Court was specifically in respect of Medical Officers performing similar duties. 12. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings available on record, it is evident that the petitioner was employed as an Epidemiologist (Homeopathic) and not as a Medical Officer (Homeopathic). There is no dispute on this aspect. Further, the petitioner has not placed any material before this Court to establish that the nature of duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Epidemiologist are same & similar to those of a Medical Officer (Homeopathic). 13. It is also on record that the Government, by order dated 01.04.2017, enhanced the pay for the post of Epidemiologist to ₹30,500/- per month. The said Page No.# 6/7 order included several other posts as well, and the salaries for those posts were also revised at different scales. The benefit of the enhanced pay was uniformly made effective from 01.04.2017 for all such posts, including that of Epidemiologist. 14. The representation filed by the petitioner seeking retrospective application of the enhanced salary from 01.04.2012 was rejected by the impugned order dated 11.12.2017. From the materials placed before this Court, it appears that the enhancement in pay for the post of Medical Officer (Homeopathic) was granted pursuant to specific court directions, and the effective date was fixed as 01.04.2012. Although the petitioner was one of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 1502/2018, it is admitted that the benefit extended to Medical Officers (Homeopathic) pursuant to the orders of this Court could not be extended to him, as he was not serving in that capacity but rather as an Epidemiologist. 15. Under such circumstances, where the order granting enhanced salary or wages to the Medical Officers (Homeopathic) was not challenged by the petitioner at the relevant point in time, and the petitioner did not seek to assert his rights, the matter cannot be revisited now. The petitioner’s salary was enhanced, along with that of other posts, w.e.f. 01.04.2017. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of enhanced salary or pay w.e.f. 01.04.2012, as no such order was passed in his favour for the grant of enhanced pay from that date. 16. It is clear that the petitioner is entitled to the enhanced salary from the date the order was issued—namely, from 01.04.2017—and he has been receiving that benefit from the same date. While the enhanced salary for the post of Epidemiologist is at par with that of the Medical Officers (Homeopathic), the mere similarity in pay does not warrant the extension of the benefit from 01.04.2012. The petitioner did not challenge the exclusion of his post from the enhanced salary order granted to the Medical Officers (Homeopathic), and as such, there is no Page No.# 7/7 ground to extend the enhanced salary retrospectively to 01.04.2012. No relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present proceedings. 17. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The contentions raised by the petitioner do not warrant any further consideration. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending interim applications, if any, stand dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant