The Punjab government has declined to extend the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) scheme and other financial benefits to Rural Medical Officers (RMOs), asserting that they constitute a distinct category from doctors in the health department. The decision was formalized in an order by the state director of the rural development and panchayats department, following directives from the Punjab and Haryana High Court to address representations submitted by RMOs seeking parity.
Cadre Distinction and Service Rules
The department concluded that RMOs, employed under zila parishads, and health department doctors belong to separate cadres governed by different service rules, appointing authorities, and service conditions. RMOs are posted at rural dispensaries across Punjab, each serving an estimated population of 10,000. In contrast, health department doctors are appointed through the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) at the state level and follow distinct service regulations.
Appointment and Regularization
RMOs were initially hired by zila parishads in 2006 on a contractual basis at a monthly remuneration of Rs 30,000, which included salaries of paramedical staff and cleaning expenses. Their appointments were made via district-level committees, and services were regularized in 2011. Health department doctors, however, undergo selection or recommendation by the PPSC.
Financial Benefits and DACP Scheme
The order clarified that while RMOs may be entitled to certain financial benefits available to health department doctors, such provisions do not automatically grant DACP benefits. The DACP scheme is a cadre-specific policy designed to address career stagnation among health department doctors and cannot be claimed by employees of another cadre. The finance department further confirmed that the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme has been approved only for health department medical officers and incorporated into their service rules. Since no approval exists for extending DACP benefits to RMOs under zila parishads, the benefit cannot be granted.
Legal and Policy Rationale
The department emphasized that parity cannot be claimed solely based on similar qualifications or broad nature of duties. Concluding that the demand was devoid of merit and not legally sustainable, the representation was rejected. The ruling underscores the distinct organizational structures and recruitment processes between the two categories, reinforcing their classification as separate entities.
