Dr Paviter Singh vs HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT on 15 October 2026

ORDER

Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: - a) Allow the instant application of the applicant along with costs. b) Quash / set aside the Govt. Order No. 714-JK (HME) of 2020 dated 17-09-2020 whereby the case of applicant for treating the period of undergoing Post Graduation in Ortho in Govt. Medical College, Jammu w.e.f 03-08-2005 to 15-02-2006 on deputation has been rejected illegally/ arbitrarily by respondent No. 1 and the said period was directed to be treated as extension of joining time without any financial implications. c) Direction to respondents to accord similar treatment to the applicant as has been done in the cases of other similarly situated doctors referred hereinabove by treating the period of Post Graduation in Ortho in Govt. Medical College, Jammu

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 3 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

w.e.f 03-08-2005 to 15-02-2006 as on deputation along with all consequential benefits. d) Directing the respondents to strictly adhere to Government Order No. 673-HME Of 2001 dated 24- 09-2001 and various orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in various writ petitions referred herein above and accord same benefits to the applicant as well. e) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.”

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: - a) The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging Government Order No. 714-JK(HME) of 2020 dated 17.09.2020, whereby his request for treating the period from 03.08.2005 to 15.02.2006, during which he was pursuing

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

his postgraduate course in Orthopaedics at Government Medical College, Jammu, as a period spent on deputation was rejected. Instead, the respondents treated the said period as an extension of joining time without any financial benefits. The applicant seeks quashing of the impugned order and a direction to the respondents to extend to him the same benefits as have been granted to other similarly situated doctors. b) The applicant submits that he was appointed as Medical Officer in the Health and Medical Education Department vide Government Order No. 464-HME of 2005 dated 01.08.2005. At the time of his appointment, he was already pursuing his postgraduate course in Orthopaedics at Government Medical College, Jammu. Pursuant to his appointment, he submitted his joining report on 04.08.2005 to the Director Health Services, Jammu, through the Principal, Government Medical College, Jammu, which, according to him, was accepted by the competent authority. After completing his postgraduate course, he reported back to the Director Health Services, Jammu, on

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

16.02.2006 and started performing his duties as Medical Officer in the Health Department. c) The applicant further submits that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir had issued Government Order No. 673-HME of 2001 dated 24.09.2001, providing that doctors who were already pursuing postgraduate courses at Government Medical Colleges, Jammu or Srinagar, at the time of their appointment as Assistant Surgeons would be treated as in-service candidates on deputation for their postgraduate courses from the date of their appointment. According to the applicant, his case is covered by the said Government Order, as he was already undergoing postgraduate training when he was appointed as Medical Officer. d) It is further stated that the benefit of the aforesaid Government Order was extended to several similarly situated doctors, either by the Government itself or pursuant to directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. In this regard, the applicant has referred to the order dated 24.03.2009 passed in SWP No. 515/2009 titled Dr. Vikrant Gupta and Others vs.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

State of J&K and Others, as well as the order dated 13.10.2010 passed in SWP No. 2393/2010 titled Dr. Mohd. Arshad Bhat and Others vs. State and Others. The applicant claims that despite being similarly placed, he has been denied the benefit extended to those doctors. e) The applicant submits that he made a representation dated 23.07.2018 before the competent authorities requesting that the period spent by him in pursuing his postgraduate course be treated as deputation in terms of Government Order No. 673- HME of 2001 dated 24.09.2001. In his representation, he also referred to the cases of other doctors who had been granted similar benefits. The Director Health Services, Jammu, forwarded his case to the Administrative Department vide communication dated 18.06.2019, recommending that the period from 03.08.2005 to 15.02.2006 be treated as deputation on the analogy of the case of Dr. Mohd. Arshad Bhat. f) Thereafter, the Health and Medical Education Department, vide communication dated 10.10.2019, asked the Director Health Services, Jammu, to resubmit the cases of the applicant and

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

another doctor, namely Dr. Sunita Sharma, along with specific recommendations with reference to the relevant rules. In response, the Director Health Services, Jammu, furnished a detailed reply along with the relevant undertaking vide communication dated 27.07.2020 for examination of the matter by the Administrative Department. g) The applicant submits that despite the recommendations made by the Director Health Services, Jammu, the respondents issued Government Order No. 714-JK(HME) of 2020 dated 17.09.2020, rejecting his request for treating the period of postgraduate studies as deputation. The respondents instead decided to treat the said period as an extension of joining time without any financial implications. h) The applicant contends that the impugned order is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to Government Order No. 673- HME of 2001 dated 24.09.2001. According to him, the respondents have denied him the benefit granted to other similarly situated doctors without any reasonable justification. He further submits that the ground taken by the respondents

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

regarding his failure to obtain prior permission or a No Objection Certificate is misplaced, as he had already joined the postgraduate course before his appointment as Medical Officer. He also claims that his joining report was accepted by the department, which was fully aware that he was undergoing postgraduate training. i) The applicant accordingly submits that the respondents have applied different standards to his case without properly appreciating the facts and the applicable Government Order. Aggrieved by the rejection of his claim, he has approached this Tribunal seeking quashing of Government Order dated 17.09.2020 and a direction to treat the period from 03.08.2005 to 15.02.2006 as deputation, with all consequential service and financial benefits.

3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: - a) The respondents have further raised the objection of limitation. According to them, the impugned Government Order was

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

issued on 17.09.2020, whereas the present Original Application was filed on 20.04.2022. It is, therefore, contended that the application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. b) On merits, respondent No. 1 submits that the applicant was appointed as Medical Officer vide Government Order No. 464- HME of 2005 dated 01.08.2005. However, instead of obtaining permission or a No Objection Certificate from the Administrative Department, he continued pursuing his postgraduate course in Orthopaedics at Government Medical College, Jammu, on his own. According to the respondents, the applicant was required to follow the prescribed procedure before continuing his studies after his appointment to Government service. c) The respondents further submit that the applicant has wrongly relied upon Government Order No. 673-HME of 2001 dated 24.09.2001. According to them, the said order was applicable to doctors appointed under Government Order No. 710-HME of

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

1997 dated 12.08.1997 and cannot automatically be extended to the applicant, who was appointed in the year 2005. It is contended that the applicant is not similarly situated to the doctors who were granted deputation benefits under the aforesaid Government Order. d) Respondent No. 1 further submits that the Government had issued Circular No. 03-HME of 2019 dated 27.05.2019 prescribing guidelines for in-service doctors seeking to undergo higher studies, including postgraduate courses, senior residency, registrarship and other training programmes. Under these guidelines, doctors are required to submit their applications through the concerned Head of Department, obtain the necessary recommendations and follow the prescribed procedure before undertaking such courses. The guidelines also require the concerned authorities to ensure that healthcare services are not adversely affected by the absence of the doctors concerned. e) It is further submitted that pursuant to the judgment dated 30.07.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) No.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

2553/2019 titled Dr. Abdul Roof and Others vs. State and Others, the Government constituted a committee vide Government Order No. 905-HME of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 to examine cases relating to the grant of No Objection Certificates to in-service Medical Officers intending to pursue higher studies. Thereafter, Circular No. 02-JK(HME) of 2020 dated 20.01.2020 was issued prescribing the procedure and criteria for forwarding such cases to the Administrative Department. f) The respondents submit that the applicant’s case was examined by the designated committee, which found that he had not followed the prescribed procedure and had continued his postgraduate studies without obtaining the necessary permission from the Administrative Department. The committee accordingly recommended that the period from 03.08.2005 to 15.02.2006 be treated as an extension of joining time without any financial implications, subject to the conditions that the applicant was not involved in any subversive activities and was not employed in any Government or private sector during the relevant period. On the basis of these

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

recommendations, Government Order No. 714-JK(HME) of 2020 dated 17.09.2020 was issued. The respondents maintain that the order was passed after proper examination of the matter and does not suffer from any illegality. g) Respondent No. 2, the Director Health Services, Jammu, has filed a separate reply explaining the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s appointment and joining. It is submitted that the applicant had been pursuing his postgraduate course in MS Orthopaedics at Government Medical College, Jammu, since January 2003. After his appointment as Medical Officer on 01.08.2005, he submitted his joining report on 03.08.2005 before the Principal, Government Medical College, Jammu, who forwarded the same to the Director Health Services, Jammu, vide endorsement dated 04.08.2005. However, according to respondent No. 2, the applicant was required to formally join in the Directorate of Health Services, Jammu, which he did not do at that time. He continued his postgraduate studies without obtaining permission from the Administrative

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

Department and formally joined the Health Department only on 16.02.2006. h) Respondent No. 2 further submits that the applicant was subsequently appointed as Consultant in Orthopaedics vide Government Order No. 301-HME of 2010 dated 17.05.2010. It is also acknowledged that the applicant submitted a representation in the year 2018 seeking the benefit of Government Order No. 673-HME of 2001 dated 24.09.2001 and that his case was forwarded to the Administrative Department. However, after examination of the relevant records and rules, the Administrative Department decided to treat the disputed period as an extension of joining time without financial benefits. i) The respondents have also explained the circumstances in which the benefit of deputation was granted to other doctors under Government Order No. 673-HME of 2001. According to them, those doctors were allowed to continue their postgraduate courses at Government Medical Colleges, Jammu and Srinagar, in public interest because of a shortage of doctors in those

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 14 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

institutions. Their continuation was specifically recommended by the Principals of the concerned Medical Colleges. In contrast, the respondents submit that the applicant continued his postgraduate course without any such recommendation from the Principal, Government Medical College, Jammu, and without obtaining permission from the Administrative Department. Therefore, his case cannot be treated at par with those doctors. j) The respondents further submit that Government policies relating to higher studies and deputation benefits have undergone changes over time. Reference has been made to Circular No. 05 of 2015 dated 19.10.2015, whereby the Government decided not to relieve in-service doctors or grant deputation benefits under Article 44-A. It is further stated that even doctors appointed in the year 2018, who were already pursuing postgraduate courses at the time of their appointment, were granted only an extension of joining time as a one-time exception under Government Order No. 630-HME of 2018 dated 20.11.2018. In those cases also, the Government

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 15 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

specifically provided that service benefits would be counted only from the actual date of joining the Health Department. k) The respondents accordingly maintain that the applicant cannot claim deputation benefits merely because similar benefits were granted to certain doctors under an earlier Government Order. According to them, the applicant’s case was examined in accordance with the applicable departmental policy and the recommendations of the designated committee. They submit that the impugned order is lawful, reasonable and based on the relevant records. Denying the allegations of discrimination and arbitrariness, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.

5. The question which arises for our consideration is whether the respondents were justified in refusing to treat the period from 03.08.2005 to 15.02.2006, during which the applicant was pursuing his postgraduate course in Orthopaedics, as a period spent on

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 16 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

deputation, particularly when similar benefits have been granted to other doctors under Government Order No. 673-HME of 2001 dated 24.09.2001.

6. Before examining the merits, we may deal with the objection of limitation raised by the respondents. The impugned order was issued on 17.09.2020 and the present Original Application was filed on 20.04.2022. The respondents have argued that the application is beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

7. However, it is necessary to keep in mind the extraordinary circumstances which prevailed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, directed that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court further directed that, where limitation would have expired during the excluded period, a minimum period of 90 days would be available from 01.03.2022.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 17 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

8. In the present case, the impugned order was passed on 17.09.2020, which falls within the period excluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The applicant filed the present Original Application on 20.04.2022, well within 90 days from 01.03.2022. Therefore, the objection regarding limitation is without merit and is accordingly rejected.

9. Coming to the merits, it is not disputed that the applicant was appointed as Medical Officer vide Government Order No. 464-HME of 2005 dated 01.08.2005. It is also not disputed that he was already pursuing his postgraduate course in Orthopaedics at Government Medical College, Jammu, when the appointment order was issued. The respondents themselves have stated that the applicant had been pursuing his postgraduate course since January 2003. Thus, it is clear that the applicant had not joined the postgraduate course after entering Government service. He was already undergoing the course before his appointment.

10. The respondents have mainly rejected the applicant’s claim on the ground that he did not obtain prior permission or a No Objection Certificate from the Administrative Department and did not formally join the Directorate of Health Services, Jammu, immediately after his

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 18 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

appointment. According to them, the applicant continued his postgraduate studies on his own and was not entitled to deputation benefits.

11. We have considered this submission. The record shows that the applicant submitted his joining report before the Principal, Government Medical College, Jammu, on 03.08.2005, which was forwarded to the Director Health Services, Jammu, vide endorsement dated 04.08.2005. The respondents dispute whether this amounted to formal joining in the Directorate. Nevertheless, the forwarding of the joining report shows that the applicant’s appointment and his continuation in postgraduate studies were brought to the notice of the departmental authorities. The effect of this communication must be examined in the light of the policy applicable at the relevant time and the treatment extended to other doctors in comparable circumstances.

12. Government Order No. 673-HME of 2001 dated 24.09.2001 provided for treating certain doctors, who were already pursuing postgraduate courses at Government Medical Colleges, Jammu and Srinagar, at the time of their appointment as Assistant Surgeons, as in-service candidates on deputation from the date of their appointment. The

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 19 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

applicant claims that he falls within the same category and is entitled to similar treatment.

13. The respondents have argued that the aforesaid Government Order was issued in respect of doctors appointed under Government Order No. 710-HME of 1997 dated 12.08.1997. They have further submitted that those doctors were retained in the Medical Colleges in public interest on the recommendations of the concerned Principals, whereas no such recommendation was made in favour of the present applicant.

14. There can be no dispute that the Government is entitled to frame policies governing deputation and higher studies and to prescribe conditions for extending such benefits. However, once a benefit has been extended to a particular category of employees, the department must act fairly while dealing with the claims of other employees who are similarly situated. If a distinction is made, it must be based on relevant facts and supported by reasonable grounds.

15. In this regard, we find that the controversy involved in the present Original Application is substantially similar to the controversy already examined by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 109/2020 titled Dr. Bharti

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 20 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

Devi Thaker vs. Union Territory of J&K and Others, decided on 20.09.2024.

16. In the aforesaid case, the applicant was appointed as Medical Officer vide Government Order No. 592-HME of 2011 dated 28.10.2011. She was pursuing her postgraduate course in Pathology and had sought treatment of the period from 11.11.2011 to 01.06.2014 as deputation under Government Order No. 673-HME of 2001 dated 24.09.2001. Her claim was rejected by the respondents, who treated the period as an extension of joining time without financial implications.

17. In that case also, the respondents had raised the objection that the applicant had continued her postgraduate studies without obtaining permission or a No Objection Certificate from the Administrative Department. They had further argued that the benefit of Government Order No. 673-HME of 2001 was available only to doctors who had been retained in the Medical Colleges in public interest on the recommendations of the concerned Principals.

18. After examining the matter, this Tribunal, in paragraph 5(ii) of its judgment dated 20.09.2024, held as under:

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 21 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

"So, in view of the above, this Tribunal uphold that the Department cannot adopt two yardsticks for the same class of employee. The respondents cannot discriminate among the similar situated people while sitting in Public Office. So, we direct the respondents to grant same relief to the applicant as has been granted in the cases of aforementioned doctors, if she is similarly situated."

19. The Tribunal accordingly directed the respondents to undertake the necessary exercise within six weeks. The principle emerging from the aforesaid judgment is that similarly situated doctors cannot be treated differently without a reasonable basis.

20. We find that the present case stands on substantially similar footing. In fact, the applicant herein was appointed in the year 2005, whereas the applicant in O.A. No. 109/2020 was appointed in the year 2011. Both were already pursuing postgraduate courses at Government Medical College, Jammu, at the time of their respective appointments. Both sought the benefit of Government Order No. 673-HME of 2001, and in both cases the respondents rejected the request for deputation

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 22 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

benefits and treated the disputed period as an extension of joining time without financial implications.

21. Another important aspect of the present case is that the Director Health Services, Jammu, had forwarded the applicant’s claim to the Administrative Department vide communication dated 18.06.2019, recommending that the period from 03.08.2005 to 15.02.2006 be treated as deputation on the analogy of Dr. Mohd. Arshad Bhat. This recommendation is a relevant circumstance which deserves proper weight while examining the applicant's claim.

22. The respondents have also relied upon Circular No. 05 of 2015 dated 19.10.2015, Circular No. 03-HME of 2019 dated 27.05.2019 and Circular No. 02-JK(HME) of 2020 dated 20.01.2020. However, the period in dispute relates to the year 2005–2006. The applicant’s entitlement must, therefore, be examined primarily with reference to the policy and rules applicable during that period. Subsequent circulars cannot, merely by their later issuance, be treated as having retrospective effect so as to take away an entitlement which had already accrued under an earlier policy.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 23 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

23. At the same time, we are conscious that Government Order No. 673- HME of 2001 was issued in particular circumstances and that the respondents have pleaded certain factual differences between the applicant and the doctors covered by that order. The question is whether those differences are material enough to justify denying the applicant the same benefit. In our view, this question must be answered by examining the actual conditions of the Government Order, the applicant’s joining report, the recommendation made by the Director Health Services and the circumstances in which deputation benefits were granted to other doctors.

24. We also find that the earlier judgment of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 109/2020 did not grant an unconditional benefit merely on the ground that the applicant was pursuing postgraduate studies. The relief was expressly made subject to the applicant being similarly situated to the doctors who had already received the benefit. Therefore, while the principle laid down in that judgment is applicable to the present case, the applicant’s entitlement must be determined on the basis of the relevant records and not merely on the similarity of the relief claimed.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 24 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

25. The respondents cannot reject the applicant’s claim solely by repeating the ground that he had not obtained permission or a No Objection Certificate, without properly examining the circumstances of his case and the manner in which similar cases were dealt with. The department must also explain why the recommendation dated 18.06.2019 made by the Director Health Services, Jammu, does not support the applicant’s claim.

26. We are of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for relief on the principle of fair and equal treatment. The impugned order does not adequately address the question of parity with the doctors who received deputation benefits or the relevance of the departmental recommendation made in the applicant's favour. The decision, therefore, requires interference to that extent.

27. It is also important to observe that the applicant has been serving the Health Department for a considerable period and was subsequently appointed as Consultant in Orthopaedics in the year 2010. The present dispute concerns the treatment of a limited period of his service during which he was completing his postgraduate qualification. While length of service by itself cannot create an entitlement contrary to the

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 25 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

rules, the applicant’s claim deserves a fair decision based on the policy applicable at the relevant time and the treatment extended to other similarly situated doctors.

28. In view of the above discussion and the judgment dated 20.09.2024 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 109/2020, we find that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the applicant’s claim without adequately addressing the question of parity and the relevant departmental record. The applicant is entitled to the same treatment as other similarly situated doctors, subject to satisfaction of the applicable conditions.

29. Accordingly, the present Original Application is allowed to the following extent, with these directions: a) Government Order No. 714-JK(HME) of 2020 dated 17.09.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside insofar as it rejects the applicant’s claim for treating the period from 03.08.2005 to 15.02.2006 as deputation without adequately examining his claim for parity with similarly situated doctors. b) The respondents shall examine the applicant’s entitlement under Government Order No. 673-HME of 2001 dated

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 26 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

24.09.2001, keeping in view the judgment dated 20.09.2024 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 109/2020 titled Dr. Bharti Devi Thaker vs. Union Territory of J&K and Others, the recommendation dated 18.06.2019 made by the Director Health Services, Jammu, and the benefits granted to other similarly situated doctors. c) If the applicant satisfies the same material conditions as the doctors who were granted deputation benefits, the respondents shall treat the period from 03.08.2005 to 15.02.2006 as deputation and grant him the corresponding consequential service benefits, including financial benefits admissible under the applicable rules. d) The respondents shall not reject the applicant’s claim merely by relying upon circulars issued after the disputed period, unless such circulars are legally applicable to his case. Any distinction drawn between the applicant and the doctors who received deputation benefits shall be supported by relevant records and clear reasons.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 27 :: O.A. No. 376/2022

e) The entire exercise shall be completed within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the applicant is found entitled to deputation benefits, the necessary service corrections shall be made and the admissible benefits released within a further period of four weeks.

30. With the above observations and directions, the Original Application stands disposed of.

31. There shall be no order as to costs.

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

/harshit /

HARSHIT YADAV