Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 294 (HP)

KARAM SINGH VERMA v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2009-04-06

RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.:-The petitioner was nominated for four years B.Sc. Agriculture condensed course during the session 1994-98 vide letter dated 30.7.1994. He joined the course. The petitioner was held entitled to study leave for two years. The respondent-State accorded the sanction of the grant of 24 months study leave to the petitioner vide office order dated 17.7.1997. A conscious decision was taken by the State on 22.8.1997. The same reads thus: “I am directed to say that the maximum amount of study leave, which may be granted to Government servant is ordinarily twelve months at any one time and twenty four months in all (inclusive of similar kind of leave for study or training granted under any other rules) in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 51 of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. There are a number of special course of special course of study consisting of higher studies in a professional or technical subject having a direct and close connection with the sphere of duties of Government servants for which the Government servants are sponsored by the concerned departments and the duration such courses is three years or more at a stretch. A proposal to allow study leave for more than two years in such cases has been under examination of this Department. It has now been decided that the maximum amount of study leave shall be three years as a special case in respect of all such cases where the course of higher studies in a professional or technical subject having a direct and close connection with the sphere of duties of a Government servant spans three years or more than three years at a stretch. The other terms and conditions regulating the study leave shall remain unchanged and these orders will be applicable with immediate effect.” 2. The petitioner was informed on 9.2.2000 to refund a sum of Rs. 89,058/-. Thereafter he was informed that a recovery of Rs. 4,500/- would be effected from his salary per month from the month commencing from April, 2000. He made a representation to the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Horticulture) in the month May, 2000. He has specifically mentioned about the notification 22.8.1997 (Annexure A-3). He had also categorically mentioned in his representation that he has completed the condensed course within a period of four years. He made a representation to the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Horticulture) in the month May, 2000. He has specifically mentioned about the notification 22.8.1997 (Annexure A-3). He had also categorically mentioned in his representation that he has completed the condensed course within a period of four years. His representation, as per the contents of the reply, was rejected by the Government on 20.1.2001 purportedly on the basis of letter dated 22.8.1997. 3. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner was entitled to get study leave on the basis of Annexure A-3 dated 22.8.1997. He has further argued that the action of the respondents of issuing Annexure A-4 and A-5 whereby recovery of Rs. 89,058/- was to be effected from him is arbitrary and unreasonable. 4. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was entitled only to two years study leave as per Annexure A-1 and was not entitled to any benefit on the basis of notification dated 22.8.1997. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was sponsored for undergoing four years B.Sc. Agriculture condensed course on the basis of letter dated 13.7.1994. He joined the course in question. He was entitled to two years study leave as per Annexure A-1. In July, 1997, 24 months study leave was sanctioned with effect from 6.8.1994 to 5.8.1996. The duration of the course was four years. The petitioner has been granted study leave for two years only. A bare perusal of letter dated 22.8.1997 suggests that the State Government was aware of the difficulties being faced by the candidates, who were sponsored for undergoing courses where the duration of the courses was more than three to four years. The petitioner was undergoing the course at the time of issuance of letter dated 22.8.1997. The same was applicable to the petitioner and he was also entitled to three years study leave instead of two years study leave. In these circumstances it was not open to the respondents to effect recoveries from the salary of the petitioner on the basis of Annexures A-4 and A-5. He had highlighted in his representation that his case was covered by letter dated 22.8.1997. The same has been arbitrarily rejected by the Government on 20.1.2001. In these circumstances it was not open to the respondents to effect recoveries from the salary of the petitioner on the basis of Annexures A-4 and A-5. He had highlighted in his representation that his case was covered by letter dated 22.8.1997. The same has been arbitrarily rejected by the Government on 20.1.2001. The action of the respondents of effecting the recovery from the salary of the petitioner on the basis of Annexures A-4 and A-5 is declared arbitrary. He has not been dealt with in a just and fair manner. He had proceeded to undergo four years condensed course after his name was sponsored by the employer. It was irrational on the part of the authorities to confine the study leave for two years when the condensed course was for four years. In order to mitigate the hardships being faced by the candidates, a very progressive decision was taken by the State Government to accord sanction for three years instead of two years. The case of the petitioner was squarely covered, as noticed above, by this notification. The State could not classify the persons who have joined the course before 22.8.1997 to deprive them the benefit of study leave of three years. The State cannot treat ‘equal’ as ‘unequal’. The candidates whose names have been sponsored for undergoing condensed course form a homogenous class. The nexus and rationale for issuing the notification was to encourage the candidates to improve their qualification. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexures A-4 and A-5 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accord sanction of study leave to the petitioner on the basis of Annexure A-3 dated 22.8.1997 within six weeks from today. The petitioner is not liable to refund an amount of Rs. 89,058/- as per Annexures A-4 and A-5. No costs.