National Institute of Rehabilitation Training and Research (NIRTAR) & Anr. Vs. Shri Ranjan Das
EmailCentral Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972
Rule 50(3) – Central civil services – Rights with regard to leave entitlement – Entitlement to study leave – Respondent employed in appellant institution (National Institute of Rehabilitation, Training and Research) seeking study leave for joining M.Tech. programme in Bio-medical Engineering course at I.I.T. Mumbai – Head of the department as well as officiating director of the institu-tion granting necessary certificate – On writ filed upon the refusal of study leave, High Court holding that in view of the certificate issued by the head of the department as well as officiating director, there was due compliance with rule 50(3) and accordingly directing the appellant to allow the respondent to join the study course. Held, decision arrived at by the High Court on facts of the case called for no interference. However, in the interest of the institution, a condition directed to be imposed requiring the respondent to give an undertaking in bond to report back to the same post at the same scale and to serve for a minimum period of three years. (Para 3)
1. The question raised before us is as to the interpretation of rule 50(3) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 which enables an employee to get leave and undergo a course of study or training which will be of advantage from the point of view of the institution, where he is employed.
2. In this case, the High Court examined the matter on the facts arising in a writ petition filed by respondent who is employed with the appellant. The High Court relied upon the certificates issued by the head of the department of Physiotherapy dated 25.5.1998 and that of the officiating director dated 21.5.1998 to hold that there is due compliance of the said rule as provided in the proviso to the said rule and gave a direction that he may be allowed to undergo and join the M. Tech programme in Bio-medical Engineering course at I.I.T. Mumbai and gave further direction that during the period of training, the respondent will be granted study leave and draw salary as is admissible under the rules.
3. We do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the High Court as it is based on the facts arising in the case though the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously con-tended that this finding is not correct. However, we think that in the interest of the institution, it would be appropriate to impose the following conditions to the relief granted by the High Court:
“He may be asked to give an undertaking in a bond to report back on the same post and same scale of pay and to serve for a period minimum three years and also to look after the preventive maintenance and repairs of all medical equipments of the institute, failing which he will have to refund the amount spent on him to undergo the P.G. course. He should not claim higher salary or post as a matter of right after obtaining the higher qualification at the cost of the NIRTAR. The respondent be relieved at the end of the current academic year.”
4. Subject to this modification, the appeal is dismissed.
