IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2270 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.4.2011. Himachal Pradesh Ayurvedic Midwife Mahasangh ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ……Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Addl.A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “i. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent-state to change the nomenclature of ‘Midwife’ to that of ‘Nursing Assistant Nurse’ in light of the submission that ‘Midwife’ word is always misinterpreted and being used against the members of the petitioner union as derogatory word. ii. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent-State to treat the Midwives/Dais as Class-III employees in light of Annexure P-8 i.e. recommendation of Director of Health Services, which provides that the Midwives may be treated as Class-III employees on the basis of Punjab pattern (in Himachal Pradesh, Midwives are treated as Class-IV employees) on the existing pay scale without any financial benefit and it will be more economical to the respondent-State. iii. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent-State to frame proper Recruitment & Promotion rules for the post of Midwife/Dai in light of recommendation/report submitted by the respondent No.3 as per Annexure P-8, in view of the fact that most of the Midwives/Dais are working with the respondent …2… department from 15 to 25 years, although 25% posts of Female Health Workers have been kept to be filled by way of promotion from the Midwives but due to non-availability of property Recruitment & Promotion rule, no promotions have been given to the Midwives/Dais till date. iv. That writ in the nature of may kindly be issued, directing the respondent-State to decide the representations Annexure P-6 and P-9 of the petitioner union in light of recommendation of Director of Health Services i.e. Annexure P-8 within time bound period.” 2. According to the petitioner, the Director Health Services has already applied his mind in the matter and has made Annexure P-8, report. Action is now to be taken by the Government. The petitioner has submitted Annexures P-6 and P-9. There will be a direction to the first respondent to take final decision in the matter, referring also to Annexure P-8, report of the Director of Health Services within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner before the first respondent. 3. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice April 27, 2011. (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (pankaj/cs) Judge