AJIT PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was selected for doing M.D. Course in the speciality of Tuberculosis and Chest diseases. One of the requirements of Government order dated 30.5.1991 (copy Annexure P-1 to the writ petition) was that no objection certificate was to be obtained from the Director, Health and Family Welfare Department, Punjab, Chandigarh/Director, Research and Medical Education, Punjab, Chandigarh. The petitioner was issued a no objection certificate copy of which is Annexure P-2 of the writ petition. In this very communication it was categorically mentioned that the petitioner would be entitled to full pay during the permissible period of the said course. The salary was admissible to the candidate who had 5 years service to the credit including three years rural service. It will be pertinent to note that prior to his selection to the three years course, the petitioner was deputed to undergo Diploma Course in the speciality of Tuberculosis and Chest disease which he successfully completed in the year 1989. The petitioner ever since his selection to undergo higher course in 1989 was receiving his full pay but to his great dismay the petitioner was not paid full pay since, July, 1991. Aggrieved against the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay him full salary in pursuance of the Government instructions.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the issue involved in the instant case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in C.W.P. No. 822 of 1988 decided on 17.5.1991 (Dr. Satish Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Punjab). It was further contended that the decision rendered in Dr. Satish Kumar's case upheld by a Division Bench and LPA against it was dismissed by this Court. It was further contended that it was held in the above case that members of Punjab Civil Service Medical Class-II undergoing post graduate course were entitled to full pay and no distinction could be made between Doctors who had less than five years or who were having more than 5 years's service. The Court also come to the conclusion that the length of service is totally irrelevant consideration in the matter of grant of salary and the case of the petitioner cannot be discriminated from other Doctors to whom full salary is being given. the duties which the petitioner performs while undergoing course of study are much more onerous. In addition, they had to spend lot of money on preparing their papers, purchasing books etc.

(3.) The learned counsel for the State of Punjab had tried to distinguish the case of the petitioner by stating that full pay is not to be given to the candidate who had earlier availed of this benefit for two years. As such, this benefit of full pay is to be given only once throughout the service career.