RAJESH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is some delay in preferring the appeal and, accordingly, an application for condonation of delay (CLMA No. 13889 of 2012) has been filed. No one is objecting to the application for condonation of delay being allowed. We have considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay and, being satisfied with the sufficiency of the reasons furnished therein, allow the same. Appellant alongwith respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 filed a writ petition challenging the decision of the Government not to provide for remuneration during the period the petitioner and said respondents will remain engaged for obtaining education at Govind Ballabh Pant Agricultural and Technical University. It was contended in the writ petition that under the Fundamental Rules, a Government employee is entitled to obtain leave for pursuing further studies and the Rules authorized payment of salaries to them during the time they will undertake further studies. It was pointed out in the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition that under the Rules, maximum leave of 28 months at the best can be given, and that, at a time, maximum 12 months' leave can be given; whereas the course in question has a duration of minimum five years. Having regard to the said stand taken by the State Government, respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, by filing an affidavit, held out that they are agreeable to undertake studies at Govind Ballabh Rant Agricultural and Technical University even without being remunerated. Appellant did not do so. In the circumstances, the writ petition has been allowed by the judgment and the order under appeal with a direction upon the appropriate Authority to nominate respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 for the course in question, but no direction for nomination of the appellant was given. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) In the appeal, it was contended that in 1987, there was a Government decision, in terms whereof a Government employee, sent to Govind Ballabh Pant Agricultural and Technical University to undertake the subject course, will be entitled to salary and other remuneration during the period he will be undertaking the said course. It was contended that the said state of affair clearly demonstrates that there is a decision to provide salary when a Government employee will be undertaking the said course. The fact remains that in the Government Order of 1987, it has been clearly indicated that only those Government employees, sent to undertake the said course, will be entitled to remuneration. In, other words, the State Government is sending those employees to undertake the said course. From 1987, the situation has changed. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it has indicated that there are enough people working in the Government, who have already acquired the said qualification and, accordingly, the Government now a days does not send anyone to undertake the said course. It has been submitted that in Govind Ballabh Pant Agricultural and Technical University, there are certain seats reserved for people working in the Government. However, the Government does not insist any of its employees to undertake the said course. On the other hand, if any of the Government employees is desirous to occupy any of those seats and he is selected by the University as suitable to undertake the said course, he is merely nominated by the State Government to occupy one of those seats and during the period he undertakes the study, he is not remunerated. That being the situation, appellant has also filed an affidavit in Court today, which is kept with the record, where he has stated that he will not insist for payment of remuneration during the time he will be undertaking the course in question. We, accordingly, allow the appeal by modifying the order under appeal to the extent that the appellant be also nominated as respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 have been directed to be nominated.