Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr.Arvind Jindal And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 May, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.W.P.No.7514 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.7514 of 2010
Date of Decision:- 29.05.2012
Dr.Arvind Jindal and another ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.S.S.Malik, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
Petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 8.10.2009 (Annexure P-7) vide which the claim of the petitioners for grant of full pay and allowances for the period they had studied in PGIMS Rohtak for their Post Graduate courses, has been rejected on the ground that they were governed by the policy prevalent then i.e. 26.4.2002 and under the said policy they were not entitled to the said benefit as has been claimed by them under the policy for the year 2008.
Counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners as well as Dr.Sachit Sharma got admission in the Post Graduate courses after passing a written examination and being in service candidates, were C.W.P.No.7514 of 2010 -2- sponsored by the Department. As per the policy, petitioners were held entitled to the grant of stipend which was given by the Institute under which they were undergoing the course but they were not entitled to the full pay and allowances. His further contention is that a similarly placed person Dr.Sachit Sharma, who had also undergone a Post Graduate course in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as AIIMS) under the 2002 policy, which was invoked in the case of the petitioners, has been granted relaxation by the Department vide order dated 22.5.2007 (Annexure P-5) according to which he has been allowed full pay and allowances for the period he was sponsored in the Super Specialty course in M.Ch. (Urology) at AIIMS i.e. 1.7.2005 to 30.6.2008. Counsel further contends that for this very period, the petitioners have also undergone the Post Graduate course from PGIMS, Rohtak but have not been granted the same benefit merely on the ground that they had not taken the said course from AIIMS. This, counsel for the petitioners, contends is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the same policy is to be made applicable and the yardstick for grant of benefit to all the similarly placed persons has to be one. On this basis, he contends that the impugned order dated 8.10.2009 (Annexure P-7) cannot sustain and deserves to be quashed.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioners have been granted the benefit as per the prevalent policy dated 26.4.2002. They are not entitled to the claim of full pay and allowances merely because relaxation has been granted in the case of Dr.Sachit Sharma. He contends that this was an exceptional case as he was C.W.P.No.7514 of 2010 -3- a single doctor from HCMS cadre for getting admission and for doing a super specialty course in M.Ch. (Urology) at AIIMS. Since he had attained a rare distinction and was sponsored to pursue the super specialty course, he was entitled to full pay and allowances. He, accordingly, contends that the petitioners are not entitled to the claim as has been made by them through the present writ petition.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.
There can be no doubt and no exception can be drawn that it is the domain of the Government to formulate a policy to regulate higher studies for doctors in the Department of Health and Medication, PGIMS Rohtak and in pursuance thereto, the policy dated 26.04.2002 has been formulated.
A perusal of the said policy would indicate that there is no distinction drawn between the Post Graduate Degrees in the form of super specialty or general degrees. No exception can be drawn on that basis and, therefore, the policy has to be implemented uniformly so far as the Post Graduate courses are concerned. Petitioners as well as Dr.Sachit Sharma participated in the exam which was held. Petitioners were selected in the PGIMS Rohtak to undergo the Post Graduate course whereas Dr.Sachit Sharma was selected in the AIIMS and was sponsored to undergo the super specialty course in M.Ch. (Urology). The petitioners were sponsored to undergo the Post Graduate courses in PGIMS Rohtak. While applying the policy, there can be no discrimination on the basis of the course pursued by the HCMS doctors. As no such indication is provided in the policy dated C.W.P.No.7514 of 2010 -4- 26.4.2002 (Annexure P-1), if relaxation is granted, it has to be granted as a class or in individual cases also depending upon the facts and circumstances which may be exceptional but when the policy itself does not indicate distinction between the various categories and artificial distinction cannot be drawn by the State to grant a particular relief to a particular person. If such an exercise is resorted to, it would amount to principle of pick and choose on whims and fancies and would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India which mandates equality for all subjects belonging to one group or class by the State. The distinction which has been drawn between the case of the petitioners and that of Dr.Sachit Sharma is that he had been admitted in super specialty course in AIIMS which was a rare distinction and, therefore, an exception was carved out for him and relaxation was granted to him under the policy by granting him full pay and allowances. This stand of the respondents cannot be accepted as the same would be beyond the parameters fixed under the policy dated 26.4.2002. If such a benefit is granted to one of the HCMS doctors, the same need to be applied to similarly placed doctors who are pursuing Post Graduate courses as the policy only deals with the Post Graduate courses and it does not make any distinction between the Post Graduate courses on one hand and the super specialty courses on the other. The action of the respondents, thus, by not granting the same benefit to the petitioners, as has been claimed by them, vide the impugned order dated 8.10.2009 (Annexure P-7), cannot legally sustain and, therefore, deserves to be quashed.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed; impugned order dated 8.10.2009 (Annexure P-7) is hereby quashed and the C.W.P.No.7514 of 2010 -5- petitioners are held entitled to the grant of full pay and allowances for the period they were sponsored to undergo the Post Graduate courses in PGIMS, Rohtak. Consequential benefits be released to them within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
May 29, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE