Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus COL. (TS) P. D. POONEKAR on 7 December 2018
A
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
v.
COL. (TS) P. D. POONEKAR
(Civil Appeal No. 8379 of 2014)
BDECEMBER 07, 2018
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDM. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service law: Armed Forces – Study leave – Extended – GrantCof pay for extended period – Entitlement – Extension of study leavegranted to respondent, a doctor in Army Medical Corps – However,he was not granted allowances for the extended study leave period– His request to authorities was rejected – Armed Forces Tribunaldirected Union of India to release pay and allowance for theextended period of study leave period – Appeal by Union of IndiaD– Held: Army Instructions 13/1978 clearly stipulate that during theperiod of study leave, an officer shall draw full pay of the substantiverank – Clause 5(b) states that study leave will count as service forpay, promotion and pension – If the period of study leave is extendedon a special dispensation by the President of India, there is noEjustification for the Army authorities and the Union of India to denythe benefit of pay and allowances on the same terms and conditionsas was allowed during the original period of study leave – Appellantsare directed to pay to the respondent all the outstanding dues – Theentire period of study leave to be counted for the payment of retiralbenefits.F
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: There is no dispute over the fact that during theoriginal period of twenty four months, the Respondent was grantedhis pay and allowances. Moreover, Clause 5(b) stipulates thatGstudy leave will count as service for pay, promotion and pension.Eventually, Army Instructions 13 of 1978 came to be amendedon 19 May 2009 as a result of which the period of study leave forpost-graduate courses of study in Health Sciences was extendedto thirty six months. The original period of study leave of twentyfour months was extended by twelve months in terms of theHrequest which was made by the respondent. Once the period of
1268
study leave was extended on a special dispensation by thePresident of India, there was no reason or justification for theArmy authorities and the Union of India to deny the respondentthe benefit of pay and allowances on the same terms and conditionsas was allowed during the original period of study leave. Theappellants are accordingly directed to pay to the respondent allthe outstanding dues within a period of two months together withinterest at the rate of nine per cent per annum. The entire periodof study leave shall also count for the payment of retiral benefitsand a re-computation as may be warranted shall be made withintwo months. [Paras 7, 8, 11][1271-D-G; 1272-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8379of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2012 and 17.05.2012of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Guwahati in O.A. No.01 of 2012 & M.A. No. 12 of 2012 in O.A. No. 01 of 2012.
S. B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Mukesh KumarMaroria, Advs. for the Appellants.
Mani Bhushan Sinha, Pranab Prakash, Gopal Singh, Advs. forthe Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Personnel belonging to the Armed Forces serve the nation inchallenging conditions and inhospitable terrain. The Medical Corps attendto the sick and the wounded. A specialist in prosthetic surgery belongingto the Army Medical Corps has had to pursue his tryst with justice overa quarter of a century, denied his pay for the extended period of studyleave abroad. Despite the sanction for the extended period by thePresident of India, the Union Government has denied him his pay. Inretirement now, he defends the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunalgranting him the pay over the extended period of study leave. Justicehas been delayed, inordinately delayed. That it was not denied should bea small recompense for an officer who devoted the prime years of life inservice of the nation.
2. The Respondent, who is a doctor, joined the Army MedicalCorps as a Permanent Commissioned Officer on 27 February 1977. He AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
1270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
Acompleted his post graduation with an MS in Surgery and was posted tothe Artificial Limb Centre at Pune. The Centre provides specialisedmedical services to armed forces personnel, veterans and civilians. Hewas granted study leave to pursue a specialization in Prosthetic Surgeryfor a period of twenty four months in the US at the University of Miami,Florida. The period of study leave was two years. Permission was grantedBon 22 May 1990. On 10 March 1992, the Respondent made an applicationseeking an extension of twelve months to complete the course of study.As a special case, an extension was granted on 17 September 1992 fora further period of twelve months. However, on 08 April 1993, he wasinformed that the allowances payable to him were discontinued. On 19COctober 2004, the request of the respondent for the grant of pay for theperiod of extension was rejected. Challenging it, the respondent institutedproceedings before the Armed Forces Tribunal which culminated in theimpugned order dated 11 April 2012. The Tribunal, while allowing theapplication, directed the Union of India to release the pay and allowancesto the respondent for the extended period of study leave of twelve months.D3. Assailing the judgment of the Tribunal, the Union of India is inappeal before us.
4. Army Instructions 13/1978 govern the grant of study leave.Clause 5 of the Instructions is in the following terms :E“5. Pay and promotion during Study leave :
(a) During Study Leave officers will draw full pay of thesubstantive rank.
(b) Study Leave will count as service for pay, promotion andpension but not for leave. It will, however, not affect any periodFof qualifying service for the grant of furlough, rendered beforethe officer proceeded on Study Leave.
(c) For other purpose like allotment of accommodation etc.the officer will be treated as if he is on furlough.”
G5. Besides this, the attention of the Court is also drawn to Clause 5 of the earlier Army Instructions, 191/62. They read thus:
“5. Secondment
(a) An Officer may be seconded for a period not exceeding 12months for the purposes of attending a course in a recognizedHinstitution.
(b) Such secondment will normally be granted in continuation ofany privilege or Study Leave, provided that the total period ofabsence from duty will not exceed two years.
(c) While thus seconded, the officer will not receive any payfrom Government funds, but the period of secondment will becounted for purposes of increments of pay, promotion, seniorityand pension but not for gratuity, subject to sub-para 4(g).
(d) This secondment may be allowed in installments of not lessthan two months, at a time.”
6. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the Unionof India is that in view of the provisions contained in Clause 5 of ArmyInstructions 191/62, an officer, on being seconded, is not entitled to receiveany pay from government funds.
7. The submission of the appellants cannot be accepted for thesimple reason that Army Instructions 13/1978 which have been issuedsubsequently, clearly stipulate that during the period of study leave, anofficer shall draw full pay of the substantive rank. Indeed, there is nodispute over the fact that during the original period of twenty four months,the Respondent was granted his pay and allowances. Moreover, Clause5(b) stipulates that study leave will count as service for pay, promotionand pension. Eventually, Army Instructions 13 of 1978 came to beamended on 19 May 2009 as a result of which the period of study leavefor post-graduate courses of study in Health Sciences was extended tothirty six months.
8. The original period of study leave of twenty four months wasextended by twelve months in terms of the request which was made bythe respondent. Once the period of study leave was extended on aspecial dispensation by the President of India, there was no reason orjustification for the Army authorities and the Union of India to deny therespondent the benefit of pay and allowances on the same terms andconditions as was allowed during the original period of study leave.
9. In his counter affidavit, the respondent has stated before theCourt that after completing his course of studies, he returned to Indiaand served the Army until he attained the age of superannuation on 31May 2013.
A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
1272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
A10. The interpretation which was placed on the Army Instructionsby the Armed Forces Tribunal is eminently correct and does not warrantinterference in appeal.
11. The appellants are accordingly directed to pay to the respondentall the outstanding dues within a period of two months from today togetherBwith interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum. The entire period ofstudy leave shall also count for the payment of retiral benefits and a re- computation as may be warranted shall be made within two months.
12. The Civil Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Therespondent shall be entitled to costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- (RupeesCFifty Thousand).
Devika Gujral
Appeal disposed of.
D
E
F
G
H