news details |
|
|
| High Court: Study leave not to be treated as deputation | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, June 7: A Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta, has resolved the matter concerning the treatment of study leave period as deputation by an employee.
After hearing AAG Amit Gupta for the Union Territory and Senior Advocate Abhinav Sharma with Advocate Abhimanyu Sharma for the respondent, the Division Bench modified the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Bench observed that it did not fully agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and allowed the writ petition partly. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal was modified to the extent that the period undergone in the DNB course by the respondent should not be treated as deputation. Instead, the Bench directed the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent, who is prima facie eligible for study leave under Rule 61 and 62 of Chapter VI of the 1979 (Leave) Rules. The respondent is entitled to all consequential benefits that would accrue to him after his period from June 25, 2014, to June 26, 2017, is treated as study leave.
Furthermore, the Division Bench directed the petitioners to establish a proper mechanism, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 61 and 62 of the 1979 Rules and Regulation 44-A and 44-F of Part-II of the Civil Service Regulations, to handle study leave and deputations in appropriate cases. This should be done well in advance before permitting applicants to leave the department to pursue higher studies or training courses. Implementing such a mechanism would not only strengthen and simplify the procedure but also avoid unnecessary litigation in the courts. The respondent, Dr. Javed Iqbal, was appointed as a Medical Officer and sought permission to undergo higher studies (DNB) Course at LRS Institute of Respiratory Medicine in New Delhi from June 26, 2014, to June 25, 2017. The request was granted, and the respondent completed the course before rejoining duty. However, the settlement of the period spent by the respondent in the Institute became a subject of dispute, leading to the filing of a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The High Court's decision clarifies that study leave should not be treated as deputation and reaffirms the respondent's entitlement to study leave benefits. This ruling is expected to have implications for similar cases in the future. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
