STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. AJIT PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was undergoing post-graduate course in the discipline of Tuberculosis and Chest diseases at the relevant time filed a petition praying for the grant of full salary for the period he was undergoing post-graduate studies in the Government Medical College, Amritsar. The claim of the petitioner was resisted by the respondents mainly on the ground that the petitioner had already availed of the benefit of full salary while doing D.T.C.D. course in the year 1989 he was entitled to the payment of full salary for one year during of M.D. course and not for the full period of M.D. Course. The contention of the appellant-State was rejected and a direction was issued to the respondents to release full salary of the petitioner or during the full course of two years vide the judgment impugned in this appeal.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) The facts of the present case and the points of law raised are covered by a judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 822 Satish Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab decided on 17.5.1991 which was upheld by a Division Bench while dismissing the letters patent appeal filed against the said judgment by the State. Mr. S.S. Shergill learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the present case was distinguishable and that the writ petitioner was not entitled to the grant of relief as prayed for by him. He has, however, not disputed the subsequent memorandum issued by the State of Punjab dealing with the grant of No Objection Certificate for undergoing post-graduate course. In the aforesaid circular, the decision of this Court in Dr. Satish Kumar's case has been noted and the trainees held entitled to the full salary during the full period of the course prescribed. The learned Single Judge has rightly noted that the benefit of the circular is also admissible to be Doctors whose term of first year had not expired. The State Government was further proved to have given such benefits to the other Doctors whose names were noticed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned. We have not been persuaded to take any different view in the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petitioner who had undergone the training and performed the duties during the aforesaid period could not be deprived of the benefits which were conferred and granted to other similarly situated Doctors. The leaned Single Judge has taken note of all the circumstances while passing the judgment impugned in this appeal.