Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 361 (UTT)

Lal Singh Bora v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-07-19

ALOK SINGH, K.M.JOSEPH

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner appeared in Uttarakhand Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination-2012 and he was selected for M.S. (General Surgery Course). He was appointed for the P.G. Course against a reserved seat. He moved an application before respondent nos. 1 & 2 for relieving him and for granting him leave with salary, and further applied for providing other necessary expenses, such as admission fee, library and training fee, as according to him, earlier also the Government had granted such facility for the candidates. 2. Respondent no. 2 wrote a letter to respondent no. 1 seeking a decision from the level of Government in furtherance to Government Order dated 16.04.2004 for granting study leave and relieving for study with salary and other expenses. Respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 13.04.2012 directed that the petitioner may be relieved for study. In the said order, respondent no. 1 mentioned that in respect of leave, salary and service condition will be determined separately. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 4 also sought an opinion from the District Government Advocate, Pithoragarh regarding payment of salary during study leave. The Government Pleader, it is alleged, opined that the petitioner may be paid salary and allowances. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents have granted study leave to many of the medical officers in the past and paid them salary during the study. Therefore, on 06.02.2015, respondent no. 4 (Chief Medical Officer, Pithoragarh) passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 21,42,568/-, which was drawn by the petitioner as salary for the period from May 2012 to November 2014 during study leave. Apprehending coercive steps, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6.2.2015 passed by the respondent no. 4 and order No. 7892/G.M.C./C-2/Court Case/Karmik, dated Nil March, 2015 passed by respondent no. 5 directing the petitioner to deposit the salary drawn by him for a period May, 2012 to Nov. 2014 (period of study leave) with Government Treasury and submit the receipt of the same with respondent no. 4. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner continuously as and when the same fell due during the study leave.” 4. 2014 (period of study leave) with Government Treasury and submit the receipt of the same with respondent no. 4. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner continuously as and when the same fell due during the study leave.” 4. We have heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to draw support from the Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 62 of 2014. It is a case, where the writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the condition mentioned in the Government order, whereby only half salary on average basis was given to the petitioner for pursuing his Post Graduate Course in the Government Medical College. The Bench set aside that portion of the office memorandum, which provided that the petitioner would be entitled for half salary on average basis and directed the Government to make payment of full salary to the petitioner. 6. We may, however, also notice paragraph no. 5 of the said judgment, which reads as under:- “We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Seeing the paucity of doctors in the State of Uttarakhand, we appreciate that the petitioner is ready to serve in any part of the State of Uttarakhand till his superannuation. Though, no doctor can compel the Government to give full salary for pursuing his M.D. (Medicine Course), but once the Government has made a policy and is giving full salary to other doctors who are pursuing their P.G. Courses, the respondents cannot discriminate the petitioner.” 7. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to serve in any part of Uttarakhand till his superannuation. We record this submission. We also notice that this is a case where there was no condition actually imposed regarding the payment of salary during the period of his study leave and subsequently also such a condition was not imposed and he was paid the full salary. 8. We record this submission. We also notice that this is a case where there was no condition actually imposed regarding the payment of salary during the period of his study leave and subsequently also such a condition was not imposed and he was paid the full salary. 8. In the light of the judgment, which is cited before us, we see no reason to subject the petitioner to a differential treatment, particularly when he is ready to work in any part of the State of Uttarakhand till his superannuation. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned is hereby quashed.