CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18598 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18598 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 18 , 2010 Dr. Mayank Jyot Singh & others .....Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- PRESENT: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. N.D.S. Maan, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the State. Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing Nos.18595 and 15729 of 2008 as the common question of law is involved in both the petitions. The facts are being taken from CWP No.18598 of 2008. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18598 of 2008 -2- The petitioners are qualified doctors having M.B.B.S. degrees. They applied for admissions to Diplomat of National Board (DNB) (Family Medicine) Course at Government Medical College, Patiala. They were duly selected candidates for this course. The petitioners were registered with the National Board of Examinations(in short NBE) (respondent No.2) for getting the training at Government Medical College, Patiala (respondent No.4.). The training is of 3 years duration. Petitioners No.3 to 5 have completed their three years training course in accordance with the guidelines of National Board of Examinations, whereas petitioners No.1 & 2 were pursuing course at the time of filing of the writ petition. As per the claim made in the petition, the petitioners are entitled to stipend, which has not been paid to them. The petitioners have placed on record the copy of certificates issued by the Principal of Government College, Patiala, certifying that they were registered with the Board for three years training in the speciality of Family Medicine, which they had joined on 11.8.2005 and completed three years mandatory training on 11.8.2008. It is further certified that the petitioners have worked during the above said period as Trainee Resident Doctors strictly in accordance with the guidelines of NBE (respondent No.2). In view of the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi, respondent No.2/ Board has issued a direction on 8.5.2006 regarding the hospitals/institutions in regard to the policy CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18598 of 2008 -3- decision for payment of stipend to DNB Trainee Doctors. After giving the reference to the orders passed by the Delhi High Court dated 23.11.2005 and 6.1.2006, it was decided by the Competent Authority of the Board as follows:- “1. Payment of stipend to DNB trainees is mandatory for all NBE accredited institutions. 2. DNB trainees shall be paid monthly stipend equivalent to the sum paid to MD/MS/DM. MCh trainees by respective State Govts., in institutions owned by them. 3. The trainee (s) shall be paid monthly stipend as per Clause (2) above or as mentioned in the table below, whichever is higher:- Programme First Year Second Year Third Year Board specialties Rs.10,000/- Rs.11,000/- Rs.12,000/- Super Specialties Rs.14,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.16,000/- 4. The DNB candidates in accordance institutions in Delhi shall be paid monthly stipend of a minimum Rs.19,000/- or the stipend paid by the Govt. of India/Govt. of NCT of Delhi to their MD/MS/DM/MCh trainees in their respective year of studies. Whichever is higher. 5. In strict compliance to the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, on 6th January, 2006, DNB trainee(s) in Delhi shall be paid monthly stipend as CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18598 of 2008 -4- per Clause (4) above mentioned in Clause (3) & (4), whichever is higher. 6. Notwithstanding the above, stipend to DNB trainees shall always be in equivalence to the sum paid by respective State Govts. As they revise them from time to time, or as mentioned in Clause (3) & (4), whichever is higher. All accredited institutions are requested to implement these revised guidelines on stipend with immediate effect. This letter supersedes all earlier communications from NBE on stipend.” Respondent No.2/Board received a communication from Government of India in regard to non-compliance of the guidelines of the Board with respect to payment of stipend and the differences being faced by the DNB Trainee Doctors. Respondent No.2/Board asked all the institutions/hospitals accredited by NBE to furnish information regarding the stipend being paid to the DNB Trainee Doctors during 2005, 2006 and 2007. Respondent No.4/College thereafter, responded to this communication on 8.5.2007 by saying that the institution will not pay any stipend/salary to the selected candidates. This was in violation of the policy and also in violation of the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court. It is further alleged that respondent No.4 has also violated guidelines dated 10.5.2007 in regard to levy of fees on the DNB Trainee Doctors. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18598 of 2008 -5- seeking direction for payment of stipend by pleading that similarly situated persons were being paid such stipend by the concerned University. In response to a notice issued, reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5. It is stated in the reply that the petitioners brought admission in the DNB (Family Medicine) at Government Medical College, Patiala. This was in response to a notice inviting applications for admission. The selection was based on the merit by the Selection Committee. It is averred that in the notice for inviting applications for DNB Course, it was clearly mentioned that no scholarship/stipend shall be paid to the selected candidates even the selected candidates were asked to furnish an affidavit as per the specimen provided in the admission notice. In response thereto, selected candidates had given an undertaking in affidavit that they would not claim any stipend during the course. It is further mentioned that when the DNB courses were started, there was no provision made by the NBE for payment of stipend. Accordingly, the Punjab Government had not made any provision for payment of stipend. It was also decided that the fees will be charged from the selected candidates at the rate prescribed by the Punjab Government i.e. less than the fees prescribed by the NBE. It is, thus, pleaded that the petitioners have no right to claim stipend at this stage by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. Plea further is that the Rules framed by the Punjab Government would be applicable so meaning thereby that the respondent-State does not CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18598 of 2008 -6- find itself bound by any direction issued by respondent No.2-Board. In a separate reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2/Board, detailed background for making provision for such a training is disclosed. It is stated that there was scarcity of training opportunities for development of specialists. Realizing this shortage, the Central Government has taken a step to meet the shortage of specialists. Reference is made to the Post Graduate Training being conducted across the world including United States of America. It is then mentioned that the answering respondent No.2 was expected by the central Government to augment the training facilities for the Post Graduation in the country. A voluminous reply filed by the Board makes a mention to the background and duties performed by the Board. However, the relevant averment in regard to the stipend is made in para 85 of the reply, where it is mentioned that the Board has rightly exercised its power under the contract to fix the stipend at the rate of Rs.19,000/- per month for Delhi candidates and for outside Delhi, the amount is to be as equivalent to the amount paid by the State Government to MD/MS/DM/MCH candidates. This is as per the guidelines dated 8.5.2006. It is also stated that most of the accredited institutions across the country have abided by the guidelines issued in regard to the quantum of stipend, which is paid to DNB Trainees. Not only that it is further mentioned in Para 90 of the reply that there is a mandate for payment of stipend/salary. Rather it is stated that respondent Nos.4 & 5 have entered into CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18598 of 2008 -7- accreditation agreement and have accepted to adhere all the policies of the respondent/Board. The Board, accordingly, has stated that the accredited hospitals are liable to pay stipend/salary without discrimination of any kind. The fact that respondent Nos.4 & 5 have agreed to these guidelines for payment of stipend to an extent can be made out from the pleadings contained in connected writ petition No.15729 of 2008. Mr. Bal appearing in this case has invited my attention to Annexure P-12 to point out that the Principal of the Medical College of Faridkot has forwarded a communication containing the details of the meeting held in the office of Vice Chancellor regarding the DNB fees stipend. After making mention about that the various facts considered, it is recorded that the Committee had decided to implement the Rules and Regulations of National Board of Examinations with immediate effect, so as to come into force from 1.4.2008 prospectively only. Mr. Bal will have still a grievance in regard to the decision taken by the respondent/University/College. He would first contend that this stipend was payable to the petitioners in the present case w.e.f August 10, 2007 i.e. they have joined the course and that too at the rate as per condition 3 of the policy instructions reproduced above. The counsel also makes reference to Annexure P-14, which is the rates payable to Senior Resident Doctors during MD course, which are the rates at which the petitioners would be entitled to receive the stipend. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18598 of 2008 -8- Mr. Maan appearing for the State, however, opposed the prayer made in the writ petition. He first submits that petitioner Nos.3 to had been admitted in this DNB course in the year 2005, whereas the policy was introduced by the Board in the year 2006. Counsel would further submits that while admitting the petitioners for this course, it was specifically brought to their notice that they would not be entitled to this stipend and rather an affidavit was obtained from the petitioners in this regard. The stand taken by the State is totally unfair and unreasonable. The State cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. In one of the cases, the University as well as the college itself has accepted the proposal prepared by the Board and have decided to disburse this stipend to some of the students. Reference in this regard has been made to Annexure P-14 in C.W.P. No.15729 of 2008. The State cannot be expected to behave in this manner. It has decided to disburse stipend salary of the students doing the same course in the institutions, which are under the control of State, but has chosen to defend the non-grant of stipend in some cases on the basis of an undertaking obtained from such candidates. In fact, this very plea by the same counsel representing the State was raised on 1.7.2010. At that time attention of the counsel was invited to Annexures P-2 & P-12 in C.W.P. No.15729 of 2008, which was the decision taken by the University to follow the National Board of Examinations norms. At this stage, the counsel had sought time to have instructions CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18598 of 2008 -9- whether the state would have a liability to pay stipend in view of the stand taken by the respondent/Board. Still the counsel chose to stick to the submissions, which were earlier made despite disclosing that he has any such instruction, which may have been passed to him in the light of the order passed on 1.7.2010. The reply filed by respondent No.2/Board is very clear and categorical. The accreditation to the institutions in the State like respondent college is granted on the condition that they have agreed to follow the norms fixed by the Board. It would not, therefore, lie in the mouth of the college or the institution now to back out, which could only be done at the cost of losing accreditation. The submission that the petitioners were admitted in the year 2005, whereas the policy by the Board came into force in the year 2006 is also apparently misconceived. The policy has been introduced by the Board on the basis of the decision given by the Delhi High Court. Once a judgment of the Court has been followed and implemented which the institutions in the State of Punjab have also accepted, it is not fair on the part of the state to still deny the prayer of the petitioners. I do not see any justification in the stand taken by the State in denying stipend to the petitioners in both the writ petitions. Mr. Bal is further justified in making a grievance that as per the policy, which has been accepted by the respondent/institution, the petitioners would be entitled to stipend in terms of clause 3 of the Policy, which has been reproduced above. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18598 of 2008 -10- The decision of the institution to pay stipend @ Rs.10,000/- per month as such also is not sustainable. It is clearly provided in the Policy that the trainee shall be paid monthly stipend as above or as mentioned in table below, whichever is higher though in the table it is mentioned that the stipend would be Rs.10000/- for the first year, Rs.11000/- for the second year and Rs.12000/- for the third year. But if the stipend being paid to MD/MS/DM/MCH training of respective State Government is higher than this, then the petitioners would be certainly entitled to this enhanced amount of stipend. The counsel has made reference to Annexure P-14, which is a copy of the order paying stipend at the consolidated salary of Rs.24,000/- per month to one of the trainee, who is doing M.S. (General Surgery). The counsel, accordingly, would pray that the petitioners would be entitled to the payment of stipend at this rate in view of the policy instructions P-3 and with special emphasis on Clause 3. Counsel for the State when confronted with this fact, submits that he is not appearing in CWP No.15729 of 2008 and this fact can more appropriately be answered by Mr. Dhindsa, who is appearing for respondents Nos.2 in this case. Mr. Dhindsa was present before lunch, but is not present at this stage to respond. In view of the discussion above, I am of the considered opinion that claim made in both the petitions deserves to be allowed. The attitude adopted by the State is totally unfair, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18598 of 2008 -11- unjust and so cannot be accepted. The institution where the courses have been run, cannot afford to violate the guidelines issued by the NBE, which are issued on the basis of a judgment rendered by the Court of Delhi. Rather this judgment is required to be respected and not dishonoured in the manner as is being suggested. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. The claim of the petitioners in writ petition No.15729 of 2008 be considered and allowed at the rates applicable in terms of the policy instructions P-3. The necessary payment due to the petitioners be calculated within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the amount due be disbursed to them accordingly. The petitioner in CWP No.15729 of 2008 would also be entitled to the enhanced amount of stipend in terms of the policy instructions P-3. The same be calculated and released to the petitioners therein within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the writ petitions are allowed in the above terms. The petitioners in both the writ petitions shall be entitled to a cost of Rs.25,000/- each. August 18 , 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE