http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MULTIPURPOSE HEALTH WORKERSASSOCIATION & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/05/1996

BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) RAY, G.N. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   111        1996 SCALE  (4)457

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T HANSARIA, J.      Special leave granted. 2. The  appellant -  association’s members  are Multipurpose Health Workers  of Haryana.  The only  question we have been called upon to decide is whether the higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 to these workers to be made available to them with effect from 1.5.1990, instead of 1.1.1994? 3. The  appellants have  their claim for the earlier date on two grounds  :(1) the  notification dated  26.7.1991 of  the State Government  raising the pay scales of " some technical posts" to Rs. 1200-2040 itself demanded the higher pay scale from 1.5.1990,  as the  same is  the effective  date of  the notification: and  (2)  other  holders  of  technical  posts having been  given the  aforesaid pay scale with effect from 1.5.1990, there  exists no cogent reason to deny same to the Multipurpose Health  Workers who discharge the same function as those  to whom  the  higher  pay  scale  was  given  from 1.5.1990. 4. The  case of  State on  the other  hand  ,  is  that  the aforesaid notification  in terms  has no  application to the Multipurpose  Health   Workers  because   the  qualification "prescribed    "     by    the    notification    is    "ITI Certificates/Diploma from  any Polytechnic.  The case of the appellants, however,  is that  the certificate course of the ITI is  of one  year’s duration  and the minimum educational qualification is  Matriculation, whereas the training period of the  Multipurpose  Health  Workers  is  of  1-1/2  year’s duration or 1 year depending upon the sex of the incumbents, and  their  minimum  educational  qualification  being  also Matriculation, the  training imparted  by the  department to them has to be taken as equal to that one received in the ITIs. The  State’s Director  General of  Health Services has taken this view as would appear from his letter No.31/1 Spl. MCH-93/5791 dated 4.11.1993. One thing, however, is opparent that the  concerned workers had not received the training of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

which the notification dated 26.7.1991 speaks of. 5. The  State counsel  brought to our notice the decision of Punjab and  Haryana High  Court taking the view that nature, content and  quality of the course prescribed for the job of Multipurpose Health  Worker is  different from the course of an ITI/Polytechnic  trained persons. Being of this view, the writ petition  filed by the appellants themselves before the High Court  claiming equality  with others technical workers was dismissed,  which came to be accepted, as this Court had not been  approached making any grievance regarding the view taken by the High Court. 6. In the aforesaid premises, we entertain no doubt that the Multipurpose Health  Workers are not entitled to the revised pay scale  with effect  from 1.5.1990  by the  force of  the notification. 7. In  so far  as the  second ground  is concerned,  we have again  been   referred  by   the  learned  counsel  for  the appellants to  the view  of the  Director General  of Health Services as  expressed in the aforesaid letter. Though it is correct  that   the  Director  General  of  Health  Services strongly recommended  the case  of  the  appellants  in  his aforesaid communication, the State Government did not accept the same  and decided  to revise  the pay  scale with effect from 1.1.1994, as would appear from the communication of the Financial Commissioner  and  Secretary  to  the  Government, Finance  Department,   dated  21.3.1994   addressed  to  the Director General  of Health  Services by  referring  to  his letter of  4.11.1993. As  the  decision  was  taken  by  the Government on  11th March,  1994, the  fixing of the date as 1.1.1994 to  give effect  to the revised pay scale cannot be said to be in any way arbitrary; it is indeed rational. 8. We  do not,  however, propose to decide the appeal merely on the  basis of  the decision  of the  Government  to  make available the  higher pay  scale from  11.1.1994,though  the same has  to be kept in mind, because the Director Generals’ view has  only persuasive  value, it  is not  binding on the Government. What  is  more  important  is  that  though  the Director General  mentioned about  various work  done by the Health  Workers   -  immunization,  making  of  blood  pads, engagement in  family welfare  programme  and  attending  to minor ailment  - we do not know about the nature and quality of duties of other holders of technical posts who were given the higher pay scale from 1.5.1990. Without this information being available to us, we cannot ask for equalization of the pay of  the Health Workers with the concerned technical post holders. 9. Thus,  there is no cogent reason to accept the contention of the  appellant to  make the  revised pay  scale effective from 1.5.1990.  The appeal  is, therefore, dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.