Punjab-Haryana High Court
Preetam Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 January, 2011
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
CWP No.3974 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No.3974 of 2008
Date of decision : 10.1.2011
Preetam Kaur and others ........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others .........Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present:- Mr.Nachhatter Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab
---
PERMOD KOHLI, J (Oral) :
The petitioners are working as ANMs in the State of Punjab and challenged the communication dated 22.3.1993 whereby the State Government informed the Director, Health & Family Welfare Department Punjab, Chandigarh and Director, Research & Medical Education Punjab, Chandigarh that ANMand LHVs who do the Staff Nurses Course are not to be granted study leave, only leave of the kind due is to be granted. Similar decision was taken in respect to Staff Nurses who undergo B.Sc. (Nursing) Course, M.Sc. (Nursing) course etc. The petitioners, who were working as ANMs, had undergone the Staff Nurses Course i.e. A Grade Nursing Course.
It is not in dispute that the controversy is squarely covered by various judgments of this Court. The last one being CWP No.4239 of 2006 decided on 24.9.2007.
In the above mentioned last judgment following observations have been made;
"In view of the above, we are satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to the same relief, as was allowed by this Court in Sukhbir Kaur's case (supra).
In the first instance we were desirous to impose costs on the CWP No.3974 of 2008 -2- respondents for not unilaterally granting to the petitioners the monetary benefits flowing to them in Sukhbir Kaur's case (supra). Specially, when the respondents were clear in mind, as is apparent from the relevant portion of the written statement extracted hereinabove, that the controversy raised in Sukhbir Kaur's case (supra) was the same as the one raised in the instant case. Learned counsel for the respondents has however pointed out that it was delayed at the hands of the petitioners, which needs to be taken into consideration before any relief to the petitioners. In this behalf, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the petitioners pursued the course under reference in the year 1992 onwards whereupon their case was considered and declined in the year 1993. It is therefore, that we have choosen not to impose costs on the respondents. In a social welfare state, it does not lie in the mouth of the State Government to decline monetary benefits due to its citizens for reason of technicalities. In the circumstances of this case, since the claim of the petitioners is squarely covered with the decision rendered by this Court in Sukhbir Kaur's case (supra), we are satisfied, that the interest of justice would be met if the petitioners, even now are released the monetary benefits due to them in terms of in Sukhbir Kaur's case (supra). The respondents are accordingly, directed to calculate the payments due to the petitioners within one month from today and release the same to the petitioners within a period of one month."
This petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
Mr.Chahal submits that a number of special leave petitions have been filed against various judgments passed by this Court. In view of the pendency of the special leave petitions, it is further observed that these judgments shall remain subject to the outcome of the SLP No.24611 of 2007.
(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 10.1.2011 akm