Aditya Narayan Yadav & Ors. v. Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Government of India & Ors.

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus to the Respondents to implement the terms of the order dated 29.08.2017 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India/Respondent No. 1 pertaining to change in the nomenclature of the Pharmacists working under the Central Government Health Scheme (‘CGHS’).

2. Petitioners are currently working as Pharmacists in different Salary structures in the Health Centre of Jawaharlal Nehru University/ Respondent No. 3. By its Executive Council Resolution No. 6.[7] in the 263rd meeting, Respondent No.3 accepted the decision of the UGC/ Respondent No.2 conveyed vide letter dated 12.11.2015, for grant of MACP to the Pharmacists and it was decided that the Pharmacists in the entry Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- will be given the higher grade of Rs.4200/- on completion of two years of service. On 29.08.2017, Respondent No. 1 issued an Office Order for change in nomenclature of Pharmacists working in CGHS across various grades, involving no change in the pay structure or grant of financial upgradations under the MACP scheme or in the existing duties and responsibilities. The revised nomenclatures of Pharmacists are as follows:

1. 2800 Pharmacist (Entry Grade) Initial Appointment

2. 4200 Senior Pharmacist (NFG) To be granted on completion of two years in the entry Grade will be treated as 1st financial upgradation under MACP Scheme.

3. 4600 Pharmacy Officer (NFG) of 10 years of service from the date of Senior Pharmacist (NFG) will be treated as 2nd MACP.

4. 4800 Senior Pharmacy Officer (NFG) of 10 years of service from the date of Pharmacy Officer (NFG) will be treated as 3rd MACP.

3. The Petitioners herein are aggrieved by non-implementation of the said Order in case of the Pharmacists working with Respondent No. 3 and it is asserted that the order has been implemented by various State Governments and other Central and State Government Institutions.

4. Petitioner No. 4 filed an RTI application on 22.08.2019 seeking information relating to the non-implementation of the Office Order and was informed by Respondent No. 2 that the order is only applicable to CGHS employees and not to Central Universities where only post of Pharmacists exists and there is no ‘Cadre’. This according to the Petitioners is a completely fallacious reason to deny the benefits of the Order dated 29.08.2017, to the Petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned action creates a discrimination amongst similarly placed Pharmacists and in this backdrop Respondent No. 3 has recommended the case of the Petitioners to Respondent No. 2, especially because grant of the revised nomenclatures will have no financial implications.

6. There is and cannot be a doubt that grant of nomenclatures, payscales, etc. are in the domain of the Executive being policy matters and it is not for this Court to transgress into the domain of the Government. However, in the present case a decision has already been taken by Respondent No. 1 on 29.08.2017, for revising the nomenclature of the Pharmacists albeit in CGHS and Respondent No. 3, who is the employer of Petitioners, has on two occasions rendered favourable recommendations. It is also to be noted that documents on record show that change in nomenclature will not bring about a change in the pay structure of the Pharmacists and therefore, as rightly stated by Respondent No.3, there will be no financial implications. Petitioners have also stated that the change in nomenclature will not entail change in the existing duties and responsibilities.

7. Keeping this in the backdrop, this Court is of the view that at this stage, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to consider the representation of the Petitioners in light of the Office Order dated 29.08.2017, issued by Respondent No. 1 and the recommendations made by Respondent No. 3, while forwarding the representations of the Petitioners.

8. Needless to state, the decision shall be taken in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks from today.

9. The order passed by Respondent No. 2 shall be communicated to the Petitioners, who shall be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedies available to them in law, in case of any surviving grievance(s).

10. Writ petition along with pending application is hereby disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.