K. N. Goyal, J. - (1.) IN these cases the petitioners are untrained Lekhpals. They were appointed on an ad-hoc basis to meet the immediate needs of the administration The training school established by the Government did not function for three years, namely 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78. thus the government was short of trained persons for appointment as Lekhpals. It was to meet this contingency that ad hoc appointments were made. Training school ultimately resumed functioning from the session 1978-79. The Board of Revenue decided to give opportunity to some untrained Lekhpals, who fulfilled certain conditions, to get themselves trained with a view to their absorption on regular basis. The petitioners are amongst them. Although they were temporary government servants and their services could, if the authorities so liked, be dispensed with by one month's notice or on expiry of the term of their appointment, as the case may be, the fact remains that their services have not actually been dispensed with. The result is that they continue to be government servants. However, the Board of Revenue has directed that no emoluments shall be paid to these petitioners during the period of training. It is aginst this direction that the petitioners have come to this court under Article 226 of the constitution.
(2.) THE only justification advanced on behalf of the State for not paying them the emoluments is that if they had been trained in the Lekhpal Training School prior to their' appointment they would not have received any emoluments for the period of their training. THEre is no provision for "in-service" training for Lekhpals. THE only provision is for "pre- service" training. Accordingly, on the basis of the parity with the persons who would have been initially appointed after receiving the training, these persons who had already been appointed on temporary/ad-hoc basis are also being denied any emoluments for the period of the training. Having heard the learned counsel for the State, we are of the opinion that justification for the decision of the authorities not to give emoluments to the petitioners during the training period is not legally tenable. True, their services can be dispensed with. But we are not to go into the question what could have been done. We are only concerned with the situation as it exists. Their services having not been terminated they continue to be government servants. Even though it may be as a matter of concession that the government has decided not to terminate their services and has decided to give them an opportunity to get trained, yet once the government took this decision not to terminate their services and allowed them to be trained 'while in service', the government is bound to pay them emoluments of the post which they continue to occupy. We may however make it clear that it does not follow that these persons, merely because their services have not been terminated and are allowed to continue in service while undergoing training, would be entitled to seniority over regular appointees of trained persons. Seniority would be governed by such provisions as Government may choose to make in that behalf.
(3.) WE are proceeding on the assumption that the service of the petitioners have not already been terminated. If any termination orders have actually been passed the benefit of our decision herein will not be available to them. Accordingly these writ petitions are allowed and a writ by way of mandamus is issued to the State to pay petitioners' emoluments for the training period. These emoluments shall correspond to the emoluments admissible to them for the posts which they continue to occupy. No orders as to costs. Petitions allowed.;