Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The argument aforesaid cannot be accepted firstly for the reason that any action of the respondents against the statutory provisions has to be rendered illegal even if there exist any justification for providing such benefits. It is settled law that benefit cannot be allowed contrary to the statutory provisions. This is more so when the Hon'ble Apex Court also expected from the respondents that they will not allow any benefit in violation of the rules either by circumventing or otherwise. The aforesaid was given while deciding the SLP in the case of Sushil Sharma (supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted thus -

The rules make it quite clear that any person who goes on a study leave would be entitled to only half the salary. In the present case neither the respondents were sent on deputation nor were they required to continue to discharge their existing duties in addition to their undertaking the course of study. This being the position, the respondents were not entitled to receive any salary in addition to one contemplated by rule 112 read with rule 97 as amended in 1979. As far as the argument placed on article 14 is concerned, it is now being well settled that two wrongs don't make a right. Merely because some other office has been given an unwarranted favour can be no ground for the rules being allowed to be violated and payment made out of the public exchequer when it is not due while allowing these appeals, we should also expect the applicant state to see that rules are not circumvented or violated as seem to have been done in cases other than those of the respondents.

From the para quoted above, it comes out that respondents are not following the rules or circumventing it. It is accepted by learned counsel for respondents that benefit of full salary is being given to the doctors and others during the course of study. The aforesaid arrangement cannot be appreciated being in violation of statutory rules and the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil Sharma (supra).

In the background aforesaid, I have even considered judgment of this court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Bhargava (supra). Therein, rule 9 of General Nursing Training Course Rules of 1990 has been taken note of. It is, no doubt, true that rule 9 prohibits deputation for the purpose of training but one should not loose sight of the fact that period of study leave was treated as deputation in view of un-amended provision of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The original provision of rule 112 was amended in the year 1979. The un-amended provision was providing period of study leave to be treated as deputation but the amended provision does not make a mention of the word 'deputation' as it would become clear from perusal of rule 112 of the RSR which is quoted thus -

2. If there is shortage of Junior Specialist, endeavour should be to amend the Rules so that direct recruitment can be made, as presently aforesaid post is filled up by promotion only. However, on the pretext of shortage of Junior Specialist, respondents cannot be allowed to violate or circumvent the rules. This is more so when it goes even against the observations and expectations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil Sharma (supra). The respondents will accordingly allow study leave and benefit thereupon as per rule 111 and 112 read with rule 97 of the RSR;