# '!( S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS

- **Citation:** [2013] 13 S.C.R. 291
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-05-07
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4483-4485 of 2013
- **Bench:** Surinder Singh Nijjar, H.L. Gokhale
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/s-sivaguru-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-28978
- **Pages:** 50

## Headnote

Service Law:
Promotion/Seniority - Merger/integration of the posts c
under different Schemes into 'multipurpose Health Workers'
- The posts of Health Workers were subsequently categorized
into 'Health Inspector Grade I' and 'Health Inspector Grade //'
- Health Inspector Grade I/ promoted as Health Inspector
Grade I by upgradation of the posts as a one time measure
D
¥
- By G.O. No. 320 dated 27.6.1997 on integration of 'Leprosy
Eradication Scheme' with 'Multipurpose Health Workers
Scheme', the 'Leprosy Inspectors' were re-designated as
'Health Inspector Grade IB' and the existing 'Health Inspectors
Grade·/' were re-designated as 'Health Inspectors Grade IA -
E
By G.O. No. 382 dated 12.10.2007 the post of Health
Inspectors Grade IA and IB were re-designated as 'Health
Inspector Grade I' and the Health Inspectors of Grade IB were
-~
en-block placed below the Health Inspectors Grade IA in the
seniority list - Denial of seniority to the re-designated Health
F
Inspectors Grade IB - Propriety of - Held: Denial of seniority
to the re-designated Health Inspectors Grade 18 was violative
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - The birth mark of
Leprosy Inspector got ob/iterated with its initial integration -
Hence there could not have been further distinction in the
,}--
cadre of Health Inspector Grade I -
The erstwhile Leprosy
G
Inspectors/Health Inspectors Grade 18/Hea/th Inspector Grade
I are entitled to their seniority from the date of initial integration
i.e. w.e.f 1st August, 1997.
291
H
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 13 S.C.R.
A
By order dated 29.9.1982, the Health Workers in the
--X
i
Health Department (Multi Purpose Health Workers and
'Unipurpose Health Workers') were integrated into one a
'Multipurpose Health Workers'. Thereafter in 1988, the
employees engaged in the Family Welfare were also
B integrated therein.
In 1989 statutory Rules were framed which were
made applicable to 'Multipurpose Health Workers
Scheme'. By the Rules Class I and Class II posts were
\-
notified as 'Multipurpose Health Assistant' and
C 'Multipurpose Health Supervisors'. The Rules prescribed
the essential qualifications for 'Multipurpose Health
Assistants'.
By G.O. No. 593 dated 11.9.1995 categorized
D 'Multipurpose Health Supervisors' and 'Multipurpose
Health Assistants' as Health Inspectors Grade I and Grade
-+
II. Thereby Health Assistants/Health Inspectors Grade II
were to be promoted as Health Supervisors/Health
Inspectors Grade I by upgradation of post as a one time
E measure, provided they had served on the post for 20
years and had crossed the age of 50 years.
By G.O. No. 320 dated 27.6.1997 'l-eprosy Eradication
Scheme' was also integrated with 'Multipurpose Health
tF Workers Scheme'. After the integration, the existing
'Health Inspector Grade I' was re-designated as 'Health
Inspector Grade IA' and the Leprosy Inspectors were redesignated as 'Health Inspector Grade IB.
In 2006, there was proposal by the Government to reG designate 'Health Inspectors Grade IB' as 'Health
~
Inspectors Grade I' after imparting one week in-service
training to them. The proposal was accepted by G.O. No.
382 dated 12.10.2007, and as per Clauses 4 and 5 of Para
6 of the G.O., they were en-block placed below the
H
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
293
existing Health Inspectors Grade I, in the Seniority List A
and were to get promotion to the next post only after the
last person in the existing seniority .List of Health
Inspector Grade I. The ~aras 4 and 5 of Claus.e 6 of G.O.
No. 382 were challenged by the re-designated Health
Inspectors Grade I (employees of erstwhile Leprosy B
Scheme). The exi.sting Health Inspectors (Grade I) also
challenged the G.O. No. 382.
--j
State of Tamil Nadu issued G.O. No. 73 dated
26.2.2008 whereby the department was permitted to c
implement orders of High Court dated 21.11.2007
whereby it was held that only those Health Inspectors
Grade I, who had 'Sanitary Inspector Course Certificate'
were entitled to be considered for promoti

## Text

_Characters 0–39,892 of 95,439. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39892 for what follows._

(2013] 13 S.C.R. 291
I
.'!(
S. SIVAGURU
A
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4483-4485 of 2013)
MAY 07, 2013
B
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]
Service Law:
Promotion/Seniority - Merger/integration of the posts c
under different Schemes into 'multipurpose Health Workers'
- The posts of Health Workers were subsequently categorized
into 'Health Inspector Grade I' and 'Health Inspector Grade //'
- Health Inspector Grade I/ promoted as Health Inspector
Grade I by upgradation of the posts as a one time measure
D
¥
- By G.O. No. 320 dated 27.6.1997 on integration of 'Leprosy
Eradication Scheme' with 'Multipurpose Health Workers
Scheme', the 'Leprosy Inspectors' were re-designated as
'Health Inspector Grade IB' and the existing 'Health Inspectors
Grade·/' were re-designated as 'Health Inspectors Grade IA -
E
By G.O. No. 382 dated 12.10.2007 the post of Health
Inspectors Grade IA and IB were re-designated as 'Health
Inspector Grade I' and the Health Inspectors of Grade IB were
-~
en-block placed below the Health Inspectors Grade IA in the
seniority list - Denial of seniority to the re-designated Health
F
Inspectors Grade IB - Propriety of - Held: Denial of seniority
to the re-designated Health Inspectors Grade 18 was violative
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - The birth mark of
Leprosy Inspector got ob/iterated with its initial integration -
Hence there could not have been further distinction in the
,}--
cadre of Health Inspector Grade I -
The erstwhile Leprosy
G
Inspectors/Health Inspectors Grade 18/Hea/th Inspector Grade
I are entitled to their seniority from the date of initial integration
i.e. w.e.f 1st August, 1997.
291
H
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 13 S.C.R.
A
By order dated 29.9.1982, the Health Workers in the
--X
i
Health Department (Multi Purpose Health Workers and
'Unipurpose Health Workers') were integrated into one a
'Multipurpose Health Workers'. Thereafter in 1988, the
employees engaged in the Family Welfare were also
B integrated therein.
In 1989 statutory Rules were framed which were
made applicable to 'Multipurpose Health Workers
Scheme'. By the Rules Class I and Class II posts were
\-
notified as 'Multipurpose Health Assistant' and
C 'Multipurpose Health Supervisors'. The Rules prescribed
the essential qualifications for 'Multipurpose Health
Assistants'.
By G.O. No. 593 dated 11.9.1995 categorized
D 'Multipurpose Health Supervisors' and 'Multipurpose
Health Assistants' as Health Inspectors Grade I and Grade
-+
II. Thereby Health Assistants/Health Inspectors Grade II
were to be promoted as Health Supervisors/Health
Inspectors Grade I by upgradation of post as a one time
E measure, provided they had served on the post for 20
years and had crossed the age of 50 years.
By G.O. No. 320 dated 27.6.1997 'l-eprosy Eradication
Scheme' was also integrated with 'Multipurpose Health
tF Workers Scheme'. After the integration, the existing
'Health Inspector Grade I' was re-designated as 'Health
Inspector Grade IA' and the Leprosy Inspectors were redesignated as 'Health Inspector Grade IB.
In 2006, there was proposal by the Government to reG designate 'Health Inspectors Grade IB' as 'Health
~
Inspectors Grade I' after imparting one week in-service
training to them. The proposal was accepted by G.O. No.
382 dated 12.10.2007, and as per Clauses 4 and 5 of Para
6 of the G.O., they were en-block placed below the
H
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
293
existing Health Inspectors Grade I, in the Seniority List A
and were to get promotion to the next post only after the
last person in the existing seniority .List of Health
Inspector Grade I. The ~aras 4 and 5 of Claus.e 6 of G.O.
No. 382 were challenged by the re-designated Health
Inspectors Grade I (employees of erstwhile Leprosy B
Scheme). The exi.sting Health Inspectors (Grade I) also
challenged the G.O. No. 382.
--j
State of Tamil Nadu issued G.O. No. 73 dated
26.2.2008 whereby the department was permitted to c
implement orders of High Court dated 21.11.2007
whereby it was held that only those Health Inspectors
Grade I, who had 'Sanitary Inspector Course Certificate'
were entitled to be considered for promotion.
Thereafter the Health Inspectors Grade I, who D
. .rpossessed 'Sanitary Inspector Course Certificate' or
'Multipurpose Health Course Certificate' filed a batch of
writ petitions praying for restraining the department from
drawing the panel for the post of 'Block Health
Supervisors Grade I', who did not possess either of the
E
above-mentioned two certificates. They took the plea that
the Unipurpose Health Workers were promoted as Health
Inspectors Grade I as a one time measure on completing
. ·-1'
20 years of s3rvice and hence were not entitled to further
promotion to the post of Block Health Supervisor. Single
F
Judge of High Court allowed the petitions. The erstwhile
Unipurpose Health Workers, not in possession of the
requisite certificates, challenged the G.O. No. 73, and also
filed writ appeal against the order of Single Judge of High
~~
Court. Division Bench of High Court held that in the Rules, G
there is no embargo on Health Inspector Grade I, who did
not possess requisite certificates, from promotion to the
next post and hence quashed the G.O. No. 73. Hence the
present appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
H
294
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
HELD: 1. The qualification of having passed the one
. year long term Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male)
Training Certificate or Sanitary Course Certificate with
short term Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male) Training
Certificate were the statutory requirements for recruitment
B and appointment on the post of Health Inspector Grade
II. These qualifications would, therefore, be possessed by
some of the incumbents on the promotional post of
Health Inspector Grade II being Multi Purpose Health
Supervisor/ Health Inspector Grade I as well. Even in the
C cadre of Health Inspector Grade II, there were many
incumbents who did not possess these qualifications.
Only the category of employees i.e., the direct recruit
Health Inspectors Grade II possessed the aforesaid
qualifications. The Unipurpose Health Workers
0 consisting of Health Workers, Cholera Workers and
Vaccinators, also had entered the cadre of Health
Inspector Grade II without such qualifications. The
requirement for having the aforesaid qualifications on the
post of Health Inspector Grade Ii was waived by way of
order G.O. Ms. No. 1936 dated 29th September, 1982.
E Thus, it is evident that the possession of the· two
aforesaid qualifications was no longer considered a
requirement for appointment on the post of Health
Inspector Grade II. It is also a matter of record that the
possession of the aforesaid qualifications was not
F prescribed for promotion to the post of Multi Purpose
Health Supervisor/Health Inspector Grade I. Notification
Ill issued under G.O.Ms. No. 1507 dated 16th August, 1989
provides for the rules applicable to the post of Multi
G
Purpose Health Supervisor. [Para 38] [325-H; 326-A-F]
Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1968)
1 SCR 111 - distinguished.
2. By virtue of the aforesaid provisions, many Health
Inspectors Grade II had been promoted as Health
H Inspectors Grade I, without possessing the aforesaid
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
295
7
qualifications; The Sanitary Inspector Course was
A
rescinded much prior to the issuance of the G.O. Ms. No.
320 dated 27th June, 1997, thu~ there was no opportunity
for the Leprosy Inspectors to qualify for the aforesaid
Certificate. Yet the aforesaid G.O. provided that since the
Leprosy Inspectors do not possess the aforesaid
B
qualifications, they shall be designated as Health
Inspector Grade 18 on integration with the post of Multi
Purpose Health Supervisor I Health Inspector Grade I. In
-f
view of the aforesaid developments, Leprosy Inspectors
were fully eligible to be re-designated as Multi Purpose c
Health Supervisor I Health Inspector Grade ·1. [Para 39]
[327-C-E]
3. The G.O.Ms: No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997 did not
have the effect of amending the rules. The aforesai~ G.O.
D
also did not supplant the statutory provisions. It is also
further clear that there was no relaxation of the
qualifications on the post of Multi Purpose Health
Assistant (Health· inspector Grade II) or on the post of
Multi Purpose Health Supervisor (Health Inspector Grade
I}. Therefore, upon integration of Leprosy Inspectors into
E
the cadre of Multi Purpose Health Supervisors, the further
categorization into Health Inspector Grade IA and Health
. -1
Inspector Grade 18 was wholly unjustified. It had no
rational nexus with any object sought to be achieved, and
'
therefore, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
'
F
of India. [Para 40] [327-F-H; 328-A]
4. Injustice had been caused to the Leprosy
Inspectors at the time when G.O. Ms. No. 320 dated 27th
.. ,)r
June, 1997 was issued, which has been rectified by G
issuing G.O. Ms. No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007. The
qualification of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male)
Training Certificate, the qualification of Sanitary Course
Certificate with Short term Multi Purpose Health Worker
(Male) Training Certificate were not the required
H
l
296
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
qualification for appointment as Multi Purpose Health
~
Supervisors. These were also not the qualifications which
were required for being appointed as a Leprosy Inspector.
However, even though by the 1997 integration through
~
G.O. Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997, the Leprosy
B Inspectors were equated with Multi Purpose Health
Supervisors, both categories were not given the same
designation. The Multi Purpose Health Supervisors were
designated as Health Inspector Grade IA, while Leprosy
'
Inspectors were designated as Health Inspector Grade IB.
~
c The aforesaid categorization of Leprosy Inspectors as
Health Inspector Grade IB was founded on a fallacy. It
was wrongly assumed by the State that Leprosy
Inspectors could not be designated as Multi Purpose
Health Supervisors as they did not possess the
D necessary qualification for the basic post of Health
Assistants, i.e., Health Inspector Grade II. The mere fact
__,.
· that Leprosy Inspectors were not placed in the feeder
cadre of Health Inspector Grade II makes it evident that
they were not required to possess the qualifications of
E
the basic posts. They were in fact from the very inception
being equated with the post of Multi Purpose Health
Supervisor (Health Inspector Grade I). It was not a case
of upgradation of the post of Leprosy Inspector to the
post of Multi Purpose Health Supervisor. The two posts
'f--
were equated. Leprosy Inspectors were transferred and
F
brought under the control of Director of Public Health
and Preventive Medicine for programme implementation.
On transfer, they were re-designated as Health Inspector
Grade IB. lnspite of the fact that the aforesaid two
qualifications of one year long term Multi Purpose Health
--/...., ..
G Workers (Male) Training Certificate and Sanitary Course
Certificate with short term Multi Purpose Health Worker
(Male) Training Certificate were not the essential
qualifications for appointment as Health Inspector Grade
I, the post of Health Inspector Grade I was unnecessarily
H split into Health Inspector Grade IA and Grade IB. [Para
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
297
43] [330-A-H; 331-A]
A
5. There was complete integration of Leprosy Control
Scheme with Multi Purpose Health Workers Scheme with
effect from 1st July, 1997 and the process of integration
was actually completed by 1st August, 1997. The High
B
Court, therefore, rightly gave the benefit of equation of
post of Health Inspector Grade -IB with that that of Health
Inspector Grade IA from the date of their integration, in
~
1997 •. [Para 44) [331-G; 332-C]
Union of India & Anr. Vs. P.K. Roy & Ors. (1968) 2 SCR c
-
186 - relied on.
6. Having accepted the complete merger of the cadre
of Health Inspector Grade IB with Health Inspector Grade
IA and all being re-designated as Health Inspector Grade
D
I, G.O.(Ms.) No. 382 of 2007 failed to achieve the intended
result. It still discriminated against the erstwhile Health
Inspector Grade IB, by robbing them of service from 1997
to 2007. They were given the pay scale of Rs.4500-1257000 but from the date of the G.O.(Ms.) No. 382 of 2007
E
i.e. 12th October, 2007. Further, they were placed en bloc
at the bottom of the seniority list of Health Inspector
Grade I. The re-designated Health Inspector Grade I were
also denied promotion on the post of Block Health
Supervisor and Technical Personal Assistant till the last
F
person in the category of Health Inspector Grade I is
promoted as Block Health Supervisor. They were given
the alternate route of promotion as Non-Medical
Supervisor and Health Educator, till their turn come;; for
. _).-
promotion, as per their seniority. [Para 45) [332-D-H]
G
7. Upon merger of the two posts, it was no longer
permissible to treat the re-designated Health Inspector
Grade IA differently from Health Inspector Grade IB. Since
1997, all incumbents on the posts of Health Inspector
Grade IA and Health Inspector Grade IB were performing
H
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 13 S.C.R.
A the same duties. There was intermixing of the duties
performed by the two categories of the Health Inspector
Grade IA and 18. Both the posts had lost their· original
identity since 27th June, 1997, and formed one
homogenous cadre. Further, having relaxed the
B qualifications on the basis of their length of service and
experience, they were at par with the Health Inspector
Grade IA. Thereafter, the State was not justified in
denying to the erstwhile Health Inspector Grade 18, the
same treatment as was given to Health Inspector Grade
c IA. Therefore, the respondents could not have been
denied the benefit of service on the post of Health
Inspector Grade I from the date of the initial integration.
[Para 46] [333-A-D]
Sub-Inspector Roop/al & Anr. Vs. Lt. Governor Through
D Chief Secretary, Delhi & Ors. (2000) 1 SCC 644: 1999 (5)
Suppl. SCR 310 - relied on.
8. Thus, the High Court was completely justified in
quashing Para 6(iv) and (v) of the G.O.(Ms.) No. 382 of
E 2007. The High Court has correctly held that the redesignated Health Inspector Grade I ought to have been
given the same scale of pay as Health Inspector Grade
IA from the date of the merger. In fact, on that date itself,
the two posts should have been re-designated as Health
F Inspector Grade I, enjoying the same scale of pay, as all
incumbents were performing the same duties and
shouldering the same responsibilities. It was not
permissible for the State to treat the re-designated Health
Inspector Grade I differently from the Health Inspector
-
G Grade IA, on the basis of the initial source of recruitment.
..l ...
[Para 47] [333-H; 334-A-C]
-
H
8. Manmad Reddy & Ors. Vs. Chandra Prakash Reddy
& Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 314: 2010 (2) SCR 860; Roshan Lal
Tandon Vs. Union of India (1968) 1 SCR 185 - relied on.
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
299
9. The birth mark was obliterated on the merger of A
the post of Leprosy Inspector with Health Inspector Grade
I. There was no justification of putting Health Inspector
Grade IB in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2010, whilst Health
Inspector Grade IA was placed in the pay scale of
Rs.1350-2200. At the time of integration, both categories
B
had to be given the same pay scale i.e. Rs.1350-2200. A
classification based on the birth mark that stood
obliterated after integration of officers, coming from
·-4
different sources into a common cadre/category, would
be wholly unjustified and discriminatory. [Para 48) [334- c
..,
D-E]
10. The matter of integration or the fusion of
employees, being one of policy, could not have been
challenged by the employees unless the said decision
was arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious. None of the
D
Government Orders vide which integration was
effectuated, suffers from any of the aforesaid
irregularities. [Para 55) (336-D-E]
Indian Airlines Officers' Assn. Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. &
E
Ors.: (2007) 1 o sec 684: 2001 (8) SCR 655 - relied on.
' · 11. The provision contained in Clause 6(v) of G.O.Ms.
No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007 denying promotion of
the re-designated Health Inspector Grade I to the post of
Block Health Supervisor and Technical Personal
F
Assistant till the last person in the existing list of Health
Inspector Grade I gets promotion as Block Health
Supervisor and Technical Personal Assistant, has been
rightly held by the High Court to be violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (Para 58] [338-F-H]
G
12. The continuance of the existing'promotion
channels as Non-Medical Supervisor and Health Educator
to the re-designated Health Inspector grade I (erstwhile
Leprosy Inspectors) did not amount to bestowing a
H
300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A double benefit upon this category. Therefore, the High
Court cannot be enforced said to have negative equality.
[Para 58] (339-A-8]
13. The High Court has correctly observed that upon
8
integration and merger into one cadre, the pre-existing
length of service of the Leprosy Inspectors re-designated
as Health Inspector Grade 18 had to be protected as it can
not be obliterated. Therefore, the Leprosy Inspectors
have been correctly placed at the bottom of the seniority
list of the already existing Health Inspectors Grade I w.e.f.
C 27th June, 1997. Therefore, it can not be said that benefit
has been given to the Leprosy Inspectors /Health
Inspector Grade 18 /Health Inspector Grade I with
retrospective effect. [Para 58] (339-8-D]
D
Prafu/la Kumar Das & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors.
(2003) 11 SCC 614: 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 301; Pradip
Chandra Parija & Ors. Vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik & Ors.
(2002) 1 SCC 1: 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 460 Uday Pratap
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1994 Sup (3) SCC
E 451: 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 72; Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. (1993) Supp. 3 SCC 575: 1992 (3)
Suppl. SCR 180; Suraj Prakash Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of J
& K & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 561: 2000 (3) SCR 807; R. S. Garg
Vs. State of UP. & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 430; Secretary, State
r
F of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1:
2006 (3) SCR 953; State of M.P. & Anr. Vs. Dharam Bir
(1998) 6 SCC 165: 1998 (3) SCR 511 Haryana State
Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Gulshan Lal & Ors. (2009) 12
SCC 231: 2009 (8) SCR 950; Nani Sha & Ors. Vs. State of
..
G Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. (2007) 15 SCC 406: 2007 (6) SCR
1 ~
1027.
~
'
Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of J & K & Ors. 1995 Supp. (1)
SCC 188; Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur
.Vs. Dau/at Mal Jain & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 35: 1996 (6) Suppl.
H SCR 584; Gursharan Singh & Ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
301
Committee & Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 459: 1996 (1) SCR 1154;
A
Shanti Sports Club & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009)
15 SCC 705: 2009 (13) SCR 710; Sanjay Kumar Manju/ Vs.
Chairman, UPSC & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 42: 2007 (6) Suppl.
SCR 72 R.K. Sethi & Anr. Vs. Oil & Natural Gas Commission
& Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 616: 1997 (1) SCR 616 Laxmi Rattan
B
Cotton Mills Limited. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2009)
1 SCC 695: 2008 (16) SCR 283; T. Venkateswarulu Vs.
Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams & Ors.
(2009) 1 SCC 546: 2008 (15) SCR 865 Ghulam Rasool Lone
Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 321:
C
2009 (10) SCR 591; K.C. Gupta & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of
Delhi & Ors. 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 408: 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR
637; SK. Abdul Rashid & Ors. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir
& Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 722: 2007 (12) SCR 940; Govind
Prasad Vs. R. G. Parsad & Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 437: 1993 (3)
Suppl. SCR 555; Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of D
Bihar & Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 647: 1990 (2) SCR 374;
Dhananjay Malik & Ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors.
(2008) 4 SCC 171: 2008 (3) SCR 1035; S.L. Sachdev & Anr.
Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1980) 4 SCC 562: 1981 (1) SCR
97'.1;
General Manager,
South
Central Railway,
E
s,ecunderabad & Anr. Vs. V.R. Siddhantti & Ors. (1974) 4
tee 335: 1974 (3) SCR 207; State of Mysore Vs. M.H.
Krishna Murthy & Ors. (1973) 3 SCC 559: 1973 (2) SCR 575;
K. Madhavan & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC
566: 1988 (1) SCR 421; R.S. Makashi & Ors. Vs. J.M. Menon
F
& Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 379: 1982 (2) SCR 69; Wing
Commander J. Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1982) 2
SCC 116: 1982 (3) SCR 453; Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar
Prasad Mah to & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 655: 2010 (10) SCR 561
- referred to.
G
Case Law Reference:
(1968) 1 SCR 111
distinguished
Para 38
2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 301
referred to
Para 21
H
302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 460
referred to
Para 21
·-...;
1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 72
referred to
Para 21
1992 (3) Suppl. SCR 180
referred to
Para 22
B
2000 (3) SCR 807
referred to
Para 22
(2006) 6 sec 430
referred to
Para 22
2006 (3) SCR 953
referred to
Para 22
. 1998 (3) SCR 511
referred to
Para 22
c
2009 (8) SCR 950
referred to
Para 22
2007 (6) SCR 1027
referred to
Para 23
1995 supp. (1) sec 188
referred to
Para 24
D
1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 584
referred to
Para 24
1996 (1) SCR 1154
referred to
Para 24
2009 (13) SCR 710
referred to
Para 24
2007 (6) Suppl. SCR
referred to
Para 25
E
1997 (1) SCR 616
referred to
Para 25
2008 (16) SCR 283
referred to
Para 26
2008 (15) SCR 865
referred to
Para 27
)i....
F
2009 (10) SCR 591
referred to
Para 27
1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 637
referred to
Para 28
2007 (12) SCR 940
referred to
Para 28
1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 555
referred to
Para 28
G
2007 (8) SCR 655
relied on
Para 55
1990 (2) SCR 37 4
referred to
Para 29
2008 (3) SCR 1035
referred to
Para 29
H
2010 (2) SCR 860
referred to
Para 48
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
303
1981 (1) SCR 971
referred to
Para 30
A
197 4 (3) SCR 207
referred to
Para 30
1973 (2) SCR 575
referred to
Para 30
1988 (1) SCR 421
referred to
Para 31
8
1982 (2) SCR 69
referred to
Para 31
1982 (3) SCR 453
referred to
Para 31
.....
1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 310
relied on
Para 46
2010 (10) SCR 561
referred to
Para 35
c
(1968) 2 SCR 186
relied on
Para 37
(1968) 1 SCR 185
relied on
Para 48
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
D
-+
4483-4485 of 2013.
From the Judgment & Order dated 23.07.2010 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition Nos. 23893 of
2006, 34401 of 2007 and 17578 of 2008.
E
WITH
C.A. Nos.4486, 4487, 4488, 4489, 4490, 4491, 4492, 4493,
·~
4494, 4495, 4496, 4497, 4498, 4499, 4500, 4501-4502 and
4503-4504 of 2013 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 133 of 2012
F
in C.A. No. 4498 of 2013 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 145
of 2012 in C.A. No. 4492 of 2013.
P.P. Rao, V. Giri, A.K. Ganguli, P.S. Patwalia, Nalini
Chidambaram, Jaideep Gupta, S. Gomathnayagam, AAG, V.
G
Mohana, Puja Singh, P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, Geetha
Kovilan, Naresh Kumar, V. Ramasubramanian, T. Harish
Kumar, Vikas Mehta, V. Raghavachari, G. Balaji, Mahalakshmi
Pavani, Mμkesh Kumar Singh (For Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,)
Vivek Jain, Chinmayee Chandra (for Vikas Mehta), Satya Mitra
H
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 13 S.C.R.
A
Garg, Plato Aristotil, Manju Aggarwal, S. Ravi Shankar, B.
Balaji, N. Ramaiah, R. Rakesh Sharma for the Appearing
Parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J. 1. Leave granted in all the
Special Leave Petitions.
2. These appeals are directed against the common
judgment and final order dated 23rd July, 2010 passed by the
_.....
c High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition Nos. 23893
of 2006, 34401 of 2007, 8339, 12654, 14592, 17578, 25844
and 27982 of 2008 and Writ Appeal No.312 of 2008 and
connected misc. petitions. By this order, the High Court
dismissed the Writ Petition Nos. 23893 of 2006 and 34401 of
D 2007 and allowed the Writ Petition No.17578 of 2008 filed by
respondents 3 to 5 and also Writ Appeal No.312 of 2008.
+
3. Since the facts involved in the controversy in all the
appeals are common, we shall make a reference to the facts
E as narrated by the High Court. This shall be supplemented by
any additions made by the appellants in this Court.
4. The facts noticed by the High Court are that initially the
Health Department consisted of Multipurpose Health Workers
and Unipurpose Health Workers who were engaged in various
~
F
schemes for eradication of different diseases which were
widespread throughout India. By an order dated 29th
September, 1982, Unipurpose Workers were integrated as
Multipurpose Health Workers. On 4th November, 1988, there
was a subsequent integration of employees engaged in the
G family welfare. Soon thereafter, statutory rules were notified
under the proviso to Article 309 by the G.O.Ms. No.1507 dated
16th August, 1989 which were made applicable to the
Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme. Under the rules,
different Class I and Class II posts were notified and their
H essential qualifications were prescribed. The essential
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
305
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
yqualification for appointment to the post of Multipurpose Health
A
Assistant was SSLC and long term Multipurpose Health
Worker's Training Course Certificate or possession of Sanitary
Inspector's Course Certificate and short term training course
certificate from multipurpose health workers training. It was
further provided that the candidates will have to acquire the long
B
time training course within five years from the date of
appointment. The essential qualifications were also prescribed
. ...4.
for all other posts. By an amendment dated 19th November,
1990 (G.O.No.1984), the pay scales of Multipurpose Health
Assistant were re-fixed. On 13th August, 1991, the Health and c
Family Welfare Department by G.O. No.1123 prescribed the
qualifications for promotions of Multipurpose Health
Supervisors as Block Health Supervisors. Vide G.O.Ms. No.4
dated 4th January, 1993 some of the categories were added
in the feeder posts of Multipurpose Health Supervisor and
D
\
Multipurpose Health Workers. These rules were, however,
·~
applicable only to those who joined the service under the Tamil
Nadu Public Health Services.
5. Again the Health and Family Welfare Department,
E
through G.O. No. 593 dated 11th September, 1995,
categorized Multipurpose Health Supervisors and Multipurpose
Health Assistants as Health Inspectors Grade i and Grade II.
-~
The G.O. further provided that all Multipurpose Health Assistants
were to be promoted as Multipurpose Health Supervisors
provided they had served on the post for 20 years and had
F
crossed the age of 50 years. This relaxation was given as a
one time measure by upgradation of the post. It is pertinent to
mention here that the Multipurpose Health Assistants promoted
- _>,
under this G.O. included the Unipurpose Health Workers who
had been absorbed pursuant to the integration in 1982. The
G
aforesaid G.O. No.593 was challenged by certain aggrieved
persons in Writ Petition Nos. 17550 of 2006 and 25608 of
2006. Prior to this, the rules were amended on 20th December,
1995 w.e.f. 6th September, 1989 by G.O. No.782. It was,
however, made clear that the amendment shall not adversely
H
306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 13 S.C.R.
A affect those who were holding the post prior to 16th August,
1989.
6. The inter se dispute between the parties in the present
appeals originated when the fact of successful eradication of
8 leprosy by the National Leprosy Eradication Programme
(NLEP) led to the integration of the employees working in the
said Scheme into the Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme.
The integration of the Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme
with the Leprosy Eradication Scheme took place vide G.O. Ms.
C No.320, Health and Family Welfare (G-1) Department dated
27th June, 1997. The G.O. sets out the rationale for the
integration as follows :-
D
E
F
"The National Leprosy Eradication Programme is in
operation in Tam;I Nadu from 1955~ With the introduction
of the Multi Drug Therapy (MDT) comprising these drugs.
DAPSONE, RIFAMPCIN and CLOFAZIMINE, incidence of
leprosy has been brought down considerably. Tamil Nadu
has done a commendable work in the leprosy control
Programme over the years. The prevalence of leprosy in
Tamil Nadu was 118 per 10,000 in 1983 which has been
reduced to 7 per 10,000. The reduction in prevalence rate
for the last two years is not very significant. Recently, India
hosted an International Meet on Eradication of leprosy and
the Prime Minister has set a goal that the leprosy should
be eradicated from India by 2000 A.D. The IWHO has also
taken similar efforts globally. The eradication of leprosy
means bringing down the prevalence rate to 1 per 10,000."
7. Thus, the Government of India in 1990-91 had
suggested integration of leprosy services. It was felt that in
G order to sustain leprosy services· at the operational level, its
integration with the public health services will be desirable.
Integration would not result in abolition of special services. On
the contrary, specialized component will continue to be available
within the general health services at the State and District level
H for planning and evaluation, provision of training, technical
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
307
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
.,..,
supervision, advice, referral services and research. The
A
purpose of this integration would be to involve the Leprosy Field
Staff in Public Health Work and Health Inspectors in the leprosy
work, so that the leprosy inspector will cover a population of
5,000 to 10,000 as against 25,000 which was being covered
at that time by the leprosy inspectors. The Government of Tamil
B
Nadu had also upon considering, for quite some. time, the
question of integrating the leprosy services with Multipurpose
Health Workers Scheme, under the Primary Health Care
Services, constituted a committee by the G.O.Ms. No. 1705
dated 18th December, 1996 to go into the various aspects of c
integration and submit a report. The recommendations
submitted by the aforesaid Committee were examined by the
Government and accepted with some modifications.
Thus, the G.O. (Ms.) No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997 was
issued integrating Leprosy Control Scheme with Multipurpose
D
Health Workers Scheme. The G.O. made elaborate provisions
with regard to: (i) the administrative control of the National
Leprosy Eradication Programme, which was to be vested with
the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, who was
to be responsible for the implementation of the National
E
Leprosy Eradication Programme activities in the State. At the
District level, the Deputy Director of Medical Services (Leprosy)
-4
would be the in-charge of the hospital based units and would
be the Programme Officer, assisted by Deputy Director (Health
Services), and (ii) the Salary and other components of the
F
programme staff. It was further provided that Salary and other
components of the programme staff under the control of Deputy
Director of Medical Services (Leprosy) will be met from the
existing allotment under Demand-18. Paragraph 4(vii) of the
_,A
aforesaid G.O. was as under:-
G
"The posts of Health Educator, Non Medical Supervisor
and Leprosy Inspectors re-designated as Health Inspector
l
Grade IB are brought under the control of Director of Public
Health and Preventive Medicine for programme
implementation. However, separate seniority shall be
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
maintained for these staff and the promotions of the
respective categories will continue in the existing channals
(sic)."
8. The other relevant clause would be 5(iv), which is as
under:-
"Leprosy Inspectors: The Leprosy Inspectors will be
redesignated as Health Inspector Grade IB and will be
transferred to the Directorate of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine. They will be posted to the Health
Sub:.centres covering a population of about 10,000 one
for 2 Health Sub-centres or at one for 5,000 population in
problem areas. The scale of pay of this category of staff
will continue to be in the existing scale of pay of Rs.120030-1560-40-2040. However, in order to protect their
present emoluments they will be allowed special
allowances of Rs. 50/- per month and the existing Health
Inspector Grade I under the control of Director of Public
Health and Preventive Medicine will be re-designated as
Health Inspector Grade IA in the Scale of pay Rs.1350-301440-1800-50-2200. The Health Inspector Grade IB will
attend to and undertake various Public Health activities as
per the Job chart for Health Inspector Grade IA in Health
Inspectors Grade IA and Grade II will also attend to
Leprosy Control Work apart from their existing duties after
necessary training. The Director of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine will issue necessary further orders
prescribing revised job chart for the Health Inspector Grade
IA, Health Inspector Grade IB and Health Inspector Grade
II."
9. Similarly provision was made for absorption of
Ministerial staff in Clause 6 of the G.O. in the following terms:-
"Ministerial Staff: One of the two sections at the State Head
quarters will be transferred to the Office of the Director of
H
Public Health and Preventive Medicine to look after the
~
~
~- •
.;..
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
309
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
service matters of the Leprosy staff other than those
A
coming under Director of Medical and Rural Health
Services. Further one Assistant will be transferred from the
Office of the Deputy Director (Lep.) to the Deputy Director
of Health Services in the Districts. The administrative
control of the above staff will vest with the Director of Public
B
Health and Preventive Medicine. The remaining ministerial
staff sanctioned for Leprosy Control Programme will be
transferred and posted to the institutions under the control
. ..;i(
of Director of Medical and Rural Health Services. The
establishment matters of all the ministerial staff including c
the staff attached to the Director of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine will, however, continue to be with the
Director of Medical and Rural Health Services for the
purpose of future promotions in the respective categories.
The salary and allowances of the ministerial staff attached
D
+
to the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine
will be met from the existing budget allotment under
Demand-10 Medical by Director of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine. In respect of other ministerial staff
salary and other allowances will be met by Director of E
Medical and Rural Health Services from the budget
allotment under Demand-18 Medical."
-+
10. By Clause 8, even the transportation vehicles were
transferred as under:-
"The Government direct that the 102 vehicles along with
F
drivers working in the Leprosy Control units shall be
transferred to the Director of Public Health and Preventive
Medicine."
~ ~·
11. By Clause 10, all the Government buildings occupied
G
by the Government Leprosy Control Units were placed under
the control of the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services
along with the equipment and furniture for expansion of Taluka
hospitals, except in places where the buildings were required
for the office of the Deputy Director of Health Services. Under
H
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A Clause 11, the Director of Public Health and Preventive
Medicine was also directed to take immediate action to impart
necessary training to the leprosy staff in various public health
activities. Similarly, the Public Health staff was directed to be
trained in leprosy control activities. By Clause 13, it was
B directed that the integration of the Leprosy Control Programme
with the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine will
take effect from 1st July, 1997. It appears that upon issuance
of the G.O., the merger was completed by 1st August, 1997. It
would be apparent from Clause 5(iv) of the 1997 G.O. that the
c Leprosy Inspectors were designated as Health Inspector Grade
IB and transferred to the Directorate of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine. They were to be paid according to their
existing scale of pay of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040. In order to
protect their present emoluments, they were given special
D allowance of Rs.50/- per month. The existing Health Inspectors
Grade I under the control of Director of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine were designated as Health Inspectors
Grade IA. They were in the pay-scale of Rs.1350-30-14401800-50-2200. It is also apparent that the Health Inspectors
Grade IB were to undertake various public health activities as
E per the job chart for Health Inspector Grade IA. Furthermore,
Health Inspectors Grade IA and Grade II were to attend to
leprosy control work apart from their existing duties after
necessary training. Thereafter, the issue with regard to the
merger of the two categories of Health Inspectors Grade IA and
F Grade IB into a single category was to be examined at the time
of the next ~ay Commission. But it appears that the issue was
not examined in the official Committee of 1998. From the above
narration, it becomes clear that there was complete integration
of the Leprosy Control Scheme with the Multipurpose Health
G Scheme through the G.O.Ms. 320 dated 27th June, 1997. Also,
the fact that non-possession of Sanitary Inspector Course by
the Leprosy Inspectors was not viewed with any serious
concern is evident from the fact that the 1997 scheme was
never challenged by the appellants.
H
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
311
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
r
12. Thereafter, the Director of Public Health and Preventive A
Medicine in his letters dated 17th February, 2006 and 15th July,
2006 set proposals for redesignation of post of Health
Inspectors Grade IB as Health Inspector Grade I considering
their length of service in the department, without imparting any
training to them. He had suggested the aforesaid proposal for B
administrative convenience. At the same time, the Public Health
Department Officials Association (Leprosy) had been
yl..
requesting the Government repeatedly for re-designating them
as Health Inspector Grade I. By letter dated 24th January, 2006,
'-
the Government requested the Director of Public Health and c
Preventive Medicine to send the necessary detailed proposal
for imparting in-service training for a period of one week for all
the Health Inspectors Grade IB so as to re-designate them as
Health Inspectors Grade I. The proposal was also to include
detail of expenditure involved in the proposed training and D
+
where the expenditure to be made out from the leprosy funds.
13. Atthis stage, some employees filed a number of writ
petitions challenging the instructions issued in the Government
letter dated 24th January, 2006 in the High Court of Madras. In
its order dated 20th January, 2007, in M.P. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2006 E
in Writ Petition No. 23893 of 2006, the High Court directed that
in redesignation made by the respondents shall be subject to
.-.+
the writ petition. At the same time, the High Court dismissed
Writ Petition No. 7892 and 7893 of 2006 on 22nd March, 2006
with the observation that before any order is passed on the
F
proposal, the State shall consider the objections of the
i
petitioners therein. It appears that Writ Petition Nos. 6250 and
6251 of 2006 had also been filed at the Madurai Bench of the
Madras High Court in which a stay order had been granted on
-_A
1st August, 2006. The stay order was, however, vacated on G
27th April, 2007. At the same time, the Tamil Nadu Health
Inspectors Association had also given a representation raising
their objection for redesignation of the Health Inspector Grade
IB as Health Inspector Grade I.
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
...
~
A
14. Upon examination of the entire issue and taking into
~
account the necessity for the merger of the Leprosy Control
Scheme with Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme, the
Government issued a further G.O.