COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 121/2003 Devendra Singh Rautela & Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dehradun & Others …….Respondents Sri B.S. Adhikari, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 8th May, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary and allowances to them for the period of two years from 17.9.1997 to 19.8.1999, during which they were under training of Live Stock Extension Officer conducted by LEO Training Centre - Pasulok, Rishikesh, Dehradun. 2. Petitioner no. 1 is a Pharmacist, who was initially appointed in the respondent department on 10.6.1988. Petitioner no. 2 and 3 were appointed on Class IV post in the respondent department on 2.7.1988 and 11.9.1995 respectively. Petitioners were selected as departmental candidates for the two years’ training of Live Stock Extension Officers conducted by the Live Stock Extension Officer’s Training Centre - Pasulok, Rishikesh, Dehradun. Petitioners were directed to participate in the said training programme and they were accordingly relieved of their official duties with direction to report at the training 2 centre. The petitioners were given training between 17.9.1997 to 19.8.1999. After the completion of the training, the petitioners were posted as Live Stock Extension Officer. But the petitioners were not given the salary for the period during which they were under training. Thereafter, petitioners made representation before the authorities. On the representation of the petitioners, Chief Vetenary Officer, Pithoragarh vide his letter dated 10.10.2002 sought direction from the Additional Director, Animal Husbandry, Uttarnachal regarding the pay of the petitioners during the training period between 17.9.1997 to 19.8.1999. In response to the said letter, the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Nainital vide its letter dated 19.10.2002 informed that the petitioners were only entitled for the stipend of Rs. 200/- per month during the period of training. These facts have not been disputed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. Petitioners claim that they are entitled to get their salary and allowances in view of the Government Order dated 26.9.2001, Annexure 12 to the writ petition, which provides that those departmental employees/participants who are getting training of Live Stock Extension Officer shall be entitled for salaries and allowances according to rules as they were getting before participating in the training. On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that the benefit of said Government Order is admissible only to those departmental candidates who were getting training from 17.1.2001 and not to those who were trained before. Since the petitioners are trainees of 1997-1999 batch, therefore, in view of the applicability of the Government 3 Order dated 26.9.2001, the petitioners are not entitled to get their pay and allowances during the period of training. 4. Undisputedly, petitioners were selected for the said training programme under the 10 per cent departmental quota and participated in the same as departmental candidates. They were duly relieved of their official duties and were specifically directed to report at the training centre. It is also undisputed that the Government Order dated 26.9.2001 provides that pay and allowances shall be admissible to the departmental candidates who undergo the said training. But since the aforesaid Government Order was issued on 26.9.2001 and the petitioners had undergone the said training in the previous batch, therefore, they are being denied the benefit of the said Government Order. But in my considered opinion, the pending claims will be covered even by the prospective Government Orders and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get their pay and allowances for the period of training in terms of the said Government Order. Moreover, it was an in-service training and, therefore, the petitioners are fully entitled for the payment of salary during the training period. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition succeeds. The respondents are directed to pay the salary and other admissible allowances to the petitioners, in terms of the Government Order dated 26.9.2001, for the period they were under training i.e. from 17.9.1997 to 19.8.1999. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 8.5.2008 Prabodh