AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Sharma, J.—The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide paras 7 (i):
(i) That during the pendency of the O.A. the Respondents may kindly be directed to release the salary of the applicant with all consequential benefits, by treating her on duty.
In reply on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 2, the following stand has been taken vide paras 3 and 6(iii):
It is a fact that the application of Dr. Monika Kaushal was sent to the Assistant Controller of Examination on 19.10.2000 but while forwarding the application of the applicant, no guarantee was given regarding the study leave rather it was made clear in the letter that the case of study leave will be decided in accordance with the relevant rules as it would be clear from the Annexure annexed to OA as Annexure A/2. The applicant appeared in entrance examination in AIIMS and got selected and now pursuing her studies. After her selection for doing D.M. (Neonatology) in AIIMS, New Delhi w.e.f. January, 2001, a communication was issued to the Director Health Services to relieve the applicant for doing the above said course, but she will only be entitled for EOL. The above facts show that before sending applicant to pursue her studies, it was made clear that she will only be given EOL. The applicant was fully apprised of the conditions of the replying Respondents in this regard and thus she has no bonafide claim for claiming salary as a matter of right. Keeping in view the foregoing position, the averments of this para are baseless, ill conceived, hence cannot be accepted under the relevant rules.
6 (iii) In reply to this para it is submitted that these doctors who have done P.G. From I.G. Medical College, Shimla or else outside the State and if they want to do super-specialization, they have to take Extra Ordinary Leave or Leave of the kind due etc., if they are otherwise eligible and fulfil various terms and conditions, but the Govt. is not ready to take the responsibility for payment during the period of training of super-specialization as the same is not admissible under the rules.
The petition is contested on behalf of Respondent No. 3 on preliminary objections regarding maintainability and estoppel.
In view of the above replies, in case the Petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to factual and legal aspects of the matter, she shall be free to make a representation to Respondent No. 2 along with a copy of this judgment within two months from today and the said Respondent shall consider and take a final decision thereon within the next two months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, if so desired.
The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any.