CWP No.3490 of 1989 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3490 of 1989 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.09.2011 Smt. Manjit Hanspal d/o Late S. Piara Singh; presently working as Nursing Tutor in SGTB Hospital, Amritsar. ... Petitioner Versus The Secretary to Government of Punjab, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chandigarh and another. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. Jatin Salwan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.2. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner seeks for writ of certiorari/mandamus holding that the order issued denying to the petitioner study leave but granting leave of the kind due when she had availed of leave for pursuing a degree course at PGI as not in accordance with law. By the impugned notice, the Government had declined the proposal for sanctioning study leave for the session 1984-86 to the petitioner. 2. The only point, which is urged by the petitioner now is that a similar case had been dealt with in a civil Court litigation and the civil suit had also been decreed. One Harpal Kaur had CWP No.3490 of 1989 (O&M) [2] filed a suit before the Senior Sub-Judge, Amritsar claiming study leave during the course of study. The suit has been decreed. The appeal filed by the State was dismissed and regular second appeal filed in RSA No.2531 of 1983 by the State has also been dismissed. There were two other cases of Smt. Raj Rani and Miss. Kailash Sharma claiming similar reliefs, which were likewise decreed when appeals were filed by the State of Punjab and the Director, Research and Medical Education in RSA No.2371 of 1993 and 1379 of 1993. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the State contends that the deputation of Government employees on training for various courses and acquiring for higher academic qualifications were dealt with by the Finance Department, Government of Punjab through its proceedings dated 07.01.1980 and it provided where the training period exceeds 90 days, prior approval of the Finance Department was necessary and cases for training or of study leave should be considered only if, the training recommended is in public interest. I cannot see how the leave availed for improving the educational qualification court turn out to be against the public interest. More so, when similar claims have been favourably accommodated by a decree of Civil Courts that stood affirmed by this Court in regular second appeal. The petitioner alone cannot be discriminated against. 4. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner's leave during the course of the study, shall be treated as duly sanctioned and consequently the petitioner will be entitled to the salary during the period when she had availed study leave and the same shall be calculated and released to her within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If, there is any delay beyond the period, the amount shall also CWP No.3490 of 1989 (O&M) [3] carry interest at 6% per annum from today. 5. The writ petition is allowed as above. SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE