2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.

The captioned appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 15.11.2018, whereby the writ petition filed b - the respondents, herein, has been accepted.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents, herein, filed a writ petition in the High. Court alleging therein, that they are serving as Resident Medical Officers (RMOs) in Teaching Hospital of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. It was alleged that some other persons having equivalent qualification were appointed as Demonstrators and both the categories were paid @ Rs, 50,000/- per month. It was contended that a proposal was prepared for increase in the salary of the Demonstrators and RMOs which was approved by the Governing Body in its meeting held on 11.12.2015, however, at the time of issuance of notification in pursuance of the approval of the Governing Body the word RMO has been omitted with mala-fide intention and due to such omission the respondents, herein, who are serving as RMOs are not being paH increased salary. It was further alleged that the duties of RMOs are more difficult and hard as compared to the Demonstrators, therefore, the RMOs are also entitled to increase in the salary as is being paid to Demonstrators. The appellants, herein, filed written statement, wherein, they refuted the claim of the respondents, herein, and submitted that Demonstrators are whole lime faculty members and the RMOs are the trainees, hence, cannot claim parity with Demonstrators. The learned High Court has disposed of the writ petition with the direction to respondent No. 2, therein, to place the case of RMOs before the Azad Government for issuance of notification in the light of meeting of Governing Body held on 11.12.2015 within a period of one month, hence, this appeal by leave of the Court.

3. Syed Sayyad Hussain Gardezi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned High Court has not properly appreciated the record while handing down the impugned judgment. The same is based on misconception of law and non-application of judicial mind. He further submitted that in the meeting of the Governing body held on 11.12.2015, the agenda of increase in the salary of RMOs was neither taken nor considered, thus, the learned High Court has fell in error while directing for issuance of notification in the light .of meeting of the Governing body. He further submitted that the Demonstrators are full time faculty members, whereas, the respondents are Trainee Medical Officer, thus, they are not entitled for increase in salary. Furthermore, the necessary party i.e. Finance Department was not arrayed in the writ petition, hence, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the sole ground.

4. Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Mughal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents seriously opposed the appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment is well in accordance with law. The respondents, who are equally qualified, are entitled to increase in salary as has been granted to Demonstrators. The proposal prepared by the appellants clearly contained that the monthly salary of Demonstrators and RMOs be increased. 1 he proposal received the assent of the Governing body in its meeting held on 11.12.2015, however, while issuing the notification only the word. Demonstrators has been entered while emitting the RMOs. In this situation-, the respondents were constrained to file the writ petition. The learned High Court has rightly issued the direction because the respondents being having same qualification are entitled for equal treatment under law. Therefore, this appeal has no substance and is liable to be dismissed.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record made available. The perusal of the record reveals that Principal Azad Jammu and Kashmir Medical College, Muzaffarabad (respondent No.2) proposed on 28.08.2014, for increase in the uniform salary package of Demonstrators/RMOs from Rs.50,000/- to 65,000/- per month. The Governing Body, in its meeting held on 11.12.2015 considered the matter under Agenda Point No.16, as follows:- " Agenda Point No.16: The Principal proposed the salary of demonstrators as Rs.65,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- with a justification that contrary to the plays of Medical Officers in the state, which is above Rs.70,000/-, demonstrators are paid less salaries and because of this they try to astray at their earliest possible opportunity. Decision: The Government Body approved the salary of Demonstrators as Rs.65,000/- (to be paid from the savings of the budget of the respective Medical Colleges)." Despite the fact that the proposal dated 28.08.2014 was moved for increase in salary of Demonstrators/RMOs, the Governing Body in its meeting held on 11.12.2015 only considered and approved the matter of increase in salary of Demonstrators and subsequently the notification dated 15.04.2016 was also issued to the same extent. Nothing has been brought on record from which it can be ascertained that the proposed increase in the salary of RMOs has been denied by the Government. Furthermore, according to the principle (If law laid down by this Court in a number of cases discrimination is not allowed. It is apparent from the record that the respondents have been discriminately treated. Both the Demonstrators and RMOs possess equal qualification i.e. MBBS and practically their nature of job is also same, thus, in this scenario we are of the view that Demonstrators/RMOs being having same qualification and nature of job are entitled to equal treatment under law. The learned High Court has rightly accepted the writ and directed the appellants for issuance of notification. The counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect or infirmity in the impugned judgment.

6. So far as the argument that the Demonstrators are full-time faculty Members, whereas, the respondents are trainees; is concerned, it does not make any difference because as has been mentioned hereinabove both have equal qualification al id nature of job is also same, therefore, this argument is weightless. 7 The argument that the Finance Department has not been impleaded as party is also meritless for the reason that no relief has been sought from the Finance Department in the writ petition rather it has been claimed that the Government with mala fide intention omitted the respondents. For the above stated reasons, finding no force this appeal is hereby dismissed. ZC/70/SC(AJ&K) Appeal dismissed.