Government cannot act benefitting particular set of persons or party: HC

JAMMU: State High Court in a petition filed by J&K Veterinary Doctors Association and others observed that a necessary corollary of this proposition is that the Government cannot act in a manner which would benefit a particular set of persons or party. Such an action will be contrary to public interest.
The court while hearing the petition said that whenever any governmental action fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest, it is liable to be struck down as invalid.
These comments came in the petition where it was submitted that in the year 1998 Notification/SRO 18 dated 19th January 1998 was issued. The SRO was called J&K Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 (for brevity "Rules of 1998"). The Rules of 1998 revised the pay scale of persons appointed to Civil Services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State including those paid from contingencies or charged to works whose pay was debitable to the Consolidated Fund of the State including those on deputation to other Governments/Organisation. However, Rules of 1998 did not apply to members of All India Services, persons to whom the J&K Civil Services Government Degree Colleges (UGC Pay) Rules, 1991, persons not in whole-time employment, persons paid otherwise than on monthly basis including those paid on piece rate basis, persons whose services were obtained on deputation, persons employed on contract basis except where contract provides otherwise, posts which carry consolidated rate of pay.
Justice Tashi Rabstan after hearing both the sides observed that in the year 1988, a Scheme was introduced by the J&K Government to grant Time Bound Promotion in favour of doctors of Health Services Department and for that matter an order bearing Government Order no.595-HME of 1988 dated 22nd July 1988 was issued. Thereafter, doctors of Indian System Medicine wing sought parity with doctors of Allopathic Wing. Their plight was addressed to and grievances remedied by Government Order no.493-HME of 1999 dated 5th October 1999, removing disparity between doctors of Indian System Medicine Wing and doctors of Allopathic Wing as also introducing scheme of Time Bound Promotion for doctors in ISM Department. The benefit of Time Bound Promotion on the lines of Allopathic doctors was also implored for by Veterinarians of Animal and Sheep Husbandry Departments, which was granted vide aforementioned SRO 43 dated 17th February 2004. 8. The J&K State Government through Health & Medical Education Department vide Government Order no.388-HME of 2005 dated 30th June 2015, in continuation to earlier Government Order no.595-HME of 1988 dated 22nd July 1988, has granted 3rd Time Bound Promotion as well, in favour of doctors of Health Department including Dental Surgeons/ Specialists. Not only Allopathic doctors, but doctors of Indian System of Medicines Department have also been given 3rd Time Bound Promotion vide Government Order no.242-HME of 2008 dated 31st December 2008. It is pertinent to mention here that Allopathic doctors and ISM doctors are two different cadres and categories; they have different departments; they have separate seniorities; they have separate Service Recruitment Rules. But both of them (services), or for that matter present Veterinarians or persons appointed to Civil Services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State including those paid from contingencies or charged to works whose pay was debitable to the Consolidated Fund of the State including those on deputation to other Governments/Organisation, are governed and regulated by J&K Civil Service Regulations inasmuch as they received the benefits (revised pay) according to supra mentioned SRO 18 dated 19th January 1998 as also have been given benefits of pay revisions as granted thereafter to other/all State Government employees. So has been given and received by the Veterinarians of Animal and Sheep Husbandry Department. Therefore, Veterinarians of Animal and Sheep Husbandry Department (petitioners herein) cannot be singled out and denied the benefit of 3rd Time Bound Promotion that is being given to similarly situated persons. This Court has vide judgement dated 19th February 2016 in SWP no.601/2014 titled Dr P. K. Abrol and others v. State of J&K and others, of which I am author, has set at rest the whole controversy raised in present petition. 9. Apart from above discussion, it may be mentioned that when the Government deals with public related matters even in distribution of bounty, the democratic form of Government exacts equivalence and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination. The government actions have a public element and, therefore, there should be fairness and equality in all provinces of the society. The State need not to venture into any such accord having discriminatory ramifications on other set of stratum. It may not be out of place to mention here that Article 14 of the Constitution of India strikes at arbitrariness in the State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle which is non-discriminatory; it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations, for, that would be denial of equality. Principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness is protected by Article 14 and it must characterise every State action, whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of executive power without making of law. This proposition, as held by the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Others, would hold good in all cases of dealing by the Government with the public, where the interest sought to be protected is a privilege. It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving job so entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion or the Government in the matter of grant of largesse including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, licences etc. must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can he shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.It has been repeatedly held that even in the matter of granting largesse, Government has to act fairly and without even any semblance of discrimination. Law on this subject has been very clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty case (supra). A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the said decision has recognized that the Government, in a welfare State, is in a position of distributing largesse in a large measure and in doing so the Government cannot act at its pleasure. Justice Tashi Rabstan further observed that with the aforesaid dictum in Ramana is being still followed by the Courts as the correct exposition of law and has been subsequently followed in many other decisions. Further to say here that whenever any governmental action fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest, it is liable to be struck down as invalid. A necessary corollary of this proposition is that the Government cannot act in a manner which would benefit a particular set of persons or party. Such an action will be contrary to public interest.
With these observations Justice Tashi Rabstan allowed the petition and holds that members of petitioner Association are entitled to third time bound promotion, who have completed 20 years of cumulative service before 1st January 2010 and any order or communication issued by respondents, denying third time bound promotion to members of petitioner Association, are declared unsustainable in law and accordingly set-aside and as a corollary, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to accord benefit of Third Time Bound Promotion in favour of members of petitioner Association from the date they completed 20 years of cumulative service. Let needful be done within a period of three months from the date a copy of this judgment is served upon the respondents by the petitioners.