IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1905 (MS) of 2007 Dr. Hemant Kandapl and others …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. R.K. Raizada, Advocate present for the petitioners. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocate present for Union of India. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The reasons given by the applicant/petitioner for recalling the order dated 11.11.2011 seem to be bona fide. Restoration application (MCC No. 959 of 2011) is allowed. Order dated 11.11.2011 is recalled and the case is restored to its original number. 2. Heard Mr. R.K. Raizada, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocate for the Union of India. 3. The petitioners are the “Ayurvedic” doctors. At the relevant time of filing of this writ petition in the year 2007 all of them were undergoing a post graduation course i.e. Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery (Ayurved) from “Rishikul Rajkiya Ayurvedic College”, Haridwar. They were constrained to file this writ petition before this Court on the ground that they were not getting the sanctioned stipend, as was applicable in the case of post graduate courses, instead the petitioners were getting a consolidated amount of ` 7,000/- in first year, `7,500/- in second year and `8,000/- in third year. They relied upon a Government order dated 23.09.2004 by which they were liable to pay of `9,000/- in first year, 2 `9,275/- in second year and `9550/-, in third year including other allowances. However, the ground for denying the benefit to the petitioners is that the petitioners are undergoing courses which are “new courses” introduce in the said college for which the State was not getting more funds from the Central Government and as such, the State Government was unable to pay the higher stipend in the case of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this plea of the respondents of denying petitioners the higher stipend cannot be sustained as they were undergoing their postgraduate courses, such course i.e. M.D. (Ayurved) “Panch Karma” and M.S. (“Shalya”), which are duly recognised by Central Council of Indian Medicine (from hereinafter referred to as “CCIM”). The contention of the petitioners would be that these courses are recognised under the regulation i.e. Indian Medicine Central Council (Postgraduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2005 (from hereinafter referred to as the Regulation, 2005). Regulation 14 of Regulation, 2005 reads as follows:- “14. Facilities for postgraduate student.- The stipend and contingency shall be provided at the rates prevailing in the State for other medical postgraduate students.” 5. Moreover, it is also contended that denying the enhanced stipend to the petitioners would be absolutely inequitable, as the other batch of students doing post graduation in another course such as M.D. (“Ayurved”) “Ras Shastra Bhaishjya Kalpna” are getting the higher stipend whereas this benefit has been denied to the petitioners only on the ground that the State is not 3 getting the assistance from the Central Government for this course. This cannot be a ground for denying the stipend to the petitioners. This action on the part of the State Government has been challenged by the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground of promissory estoppels. There were already Government order and regulation, which give the right to such postgraduate students to get a stipend, which would be given to other postgraduate students. There is absolutely no justification for giving a higher stipend to another batch of postgraduate students and giving a lower stipend to the petitioners. This action of the State Government is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. In this case vide an interim order of this Court dated 13.4.2007, the petitioners were also getting higher stipend like the other students of Postgraduate courses. The Division Bench of this Court passed the following orders on 13.4.2007: - “Admit. Notices on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 have been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel and notices on behalf of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 7 have been accepted by the learned Assistant Solicitor General while notice on behalf of respondent no.6 has been accepted by Sri J.P. Joshi, Advocate. The respondents shall file their counter affidavits within three weeks. List thereafter. In the meantime, respondents are directed to pay the equal amount of stipend and allowances as is being paid to other students of Post Graduate course i.e. M.D. Ras Shastra Bhaishjya Kalpna.” 4 7. At this stage, a statement has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the bar that interim order has been complied with and the petitioners have received a higher stipend and presently all have completed their courses and are doing their respective jobs. Since denial of higher stipend to the petitioners was unfair and moreover, by an interim order of this Court the petitioners in any case have received the higher stipend denying their right would also amount to effectively a recovery from the petitioners. 8. The writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Petitioners are liable to receive the same stipend as is given to other students. 9. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 26.12.2011 Virendra