IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 12523 of 2008 Decided on: 20.6.2011 Madhu Bala …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Debinder Ghosh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner has prayed a direction against the respondents to pay her extra pay for one month in each financial year from 2000 to 2004, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that during the relevant period she was posted as Staff Nurse at Primary Health Centre, Shri. Chamunda. The staff nurses perform duties for more than prescribed hours of duty, as such, in view of the over time work and nature of job of the staff nurses, the department had made specific provisions, issuing instructions for providing one month extra pay in each financial year to the staff nurses. It has been alleged that during the relevant period in four financial years the petitioner had performed over work and therefore, she is 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes. 2 entitled to one month extra salary in each financial year from 2000 to 2004. 3. The respondents have filed reply in which it has been stated that one month extra pay is admissible to those nursing personnel who perform over work beyond their normal duty hours and that too when over work performed is verified by the Medical Officer concerned and certificate to that effect is issued by the Drawing & Disbursing Officer, concerned. It has been alleged that certificates Annexure A-1 and A-2 have not been made on the basis of duty roster which is to be maintained in all the institutions including Primary Health Centre, Shri Chamunda. On these grounds the respondents have taken the stand that the petitioner is not entitled to one month extra salary in the financial years 2000 to 2004. 4. The Annexure A-1 is Certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Shri. Chamunda certifying that Madhu Chawla has performed duty more than prescribed hours during the year April, 2001. The Annexure A-2 is the Certificate that Madhu Bala has performed night duty (On call) either (sic) than the usual working hours during the year April, 2002 to March, 2003. These are the only certificates, which have been placed on record by the petitioner. The performing of night duty stated in Annexure A-2 is not equivalent to performing over work. The extra salary for one month is given if over work has been done regularly and not for attending duty on call during night. There is nothing on record in April 2002 to March, 2003 petitioner had 3 attended night calls regularly and that too beyond prescribed duty hours. In emergent situation medical staff is bound to attend the patient at any time. The extra work done by Medical staff in such a situation can be compensated in terms of rules but not paying extra salary. There is nothing in Annexure A-2 that petitioner has regularly over worked beyond prescribed duty hours. 5. The respondent has not accepted the Annexure A-1 on the ground that certificate is not based on the basis of duty roster. Once Incharge Medical Officer of the primary Health Centre has certified that the petitioner has performed duties more than prescribed hours during the year April, 2001 to March 2002, it is enough to record a finding that the petitioner from April, 2001 to March, 2002 has performed more than prescribed hours of duties. It is not the stand of the respondents that Certificate Annexure A-1 is false. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of extra pay of one month in the financial year April, 2001 to March, 2002. However, the petitioner has failed to make out her case for extra pay of one month in each financial year from April, 2002 to March, 2004. 5. In view of above, the petition is partly allowed. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to extra pay for one month in the financial year April, 2001 to March, 2002, but the remaining claim of the petitioner is rejected. The respondents are directed to pay extra pay of one month to petitioner in the financial year from April, 2001 to March, 2002 within a period of four weeks from the 4 date of supply of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to the competent authority, failing which the respondents shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.2002 till payment. Petition stands disposed of. ( Kuldip Singh ), June 20th, 2011 Judge. (priti)