Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12.As rightly put forth on the side of the appellants, the services of the respondent are not utilized by the Government unlike the in-service candidates who undergo higher studies in Government Medical Colleges whose services are being utilized by the Government fully. Since their services are fully utilized by the Private Medical Colleges for the betterment of patients of private institutions which provides paid service to the public, it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis is for the institutions where the in-service candidates / Doctors are undergoing higher studies, to necessarily pay their salary during their period of study in the institution and the said salary should be on par with the Government Doctors. In this connection, it would be appropriate to refer to Regulation 13.3 of the Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, which states that the Post Graduate students of the institutions which are located in various States / Union Territories has to be paid remuneration at par with the remuneration being paid to the Post Graduate students of State Government Medical Institutions / Central Government Medical Institutions in the State / Union Territory in which the institution is located. Further, as per the advisory released on 24.08.2023 by the Post Graduate Medical Education Board in File No.NMC/PG/Legal/2023/(21033)/048792, it was made clear that payment of remuneration should be on par with the Government Institutions and the same shall be paid by the Private Medical College. In Registrar, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute and another v. D. Rajasree and Others [2023 SCC OnLine Mad 5211] the first bench of this court has categorically observed that the payment of stipend being a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis statutory liability of the College, it would not be open for the College to deny the payment of the same to the students. On the contrary, they are duty bound and have legal obligation to pay the said amount to the students and cannot deny the same on the ground of equitable set-off, even when the amount that is sought to be claimed by the Colleges is not yet ascertained. Thus, the principle laid down is that there should be no discrimination between the in-service candidates undergoing PG Medical Course in the Government Colleges and in-service candidates undergoing PG Medical Course in the Private Medical Colleges. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the institution, where the respondent / writ petitioner is pursuing her post graduate course, is bound to pay stipend in the form of salary to her, on par with the medical officers, pursuing PG course in the Government colleges/ institutions, during the course of study.