Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 5]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sant Longowal Institute Of Engineering ... vs Suresh Chandra Verma on 23 August, 2012

Author: Hemant Gupta

Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                       Date of decision: 23.8.2012
                                           LPA No. 363 of 2012

Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering & Technology       and another
                                    ......Appellants.
                              vs.
Suresh Chandra Verma                                     .....Respondent

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: - Mr. Ankit Goel, Advocate for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J Challenge in the present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is to an order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 2.2.2012, wherein the demand of the appellants for refund of the amount of Rs. 12,32,126/-, the salary for the period of study leave to pursue Ph.D program was set aside.

Respondent-writ petitioner was granted leave for pursuing Ph.D program on 24.7.1999. He joined his duties after leave period on 22.7.2002. Earlier, the request made by the writ petitioner for extension of six months for completion of Ph.D program was turned down. Before the writ petitioner was granted leave, he has furnished a bond to serve the appellant herein for a period of six years after completion of the study leave. It is not disputed that in fact, the writ petitioner has worked for a period of six years, after he completed the period of study leave.

Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition holding that the refund cannot be claimed.

Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any condition in the conditions of grant of study leave that the writ petitioner has to complete the Ph.D program within a period of three years. The only condition was that he has to serve for a period of six years after -2- availing the period of study leave. Admittedly, the respondent has completed such period of six years. He has also associated himself with Ph.D program but could not complete the same. There was no condition that the writ petitioner has to complete the Ph.D. Course in three years itself.

Therefore, we do not find that there is any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, which may warrant interference in appeal.

Dismissed.

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 23.8.2012 preeti