Civil Writ Petition No.19498 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: August 27, 2009 Virender Kumar & others ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & 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.Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos.19498 of 2008 (Virender Kumar & others Vs. State of Haryana & others) and 3178 of 2009 (Naseeb Singh & another Vs. State of Haryana & others). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition Nos.19498 of 2008. Civil Writ Petition No.19498 of 2008 : 2 : Petitioner No.1 is working as a Chemist with respondent No.3, whereas petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are working as Junior Analytical Assistants with respondent No.3. On 18.12.2007, the petitioners were permitted to do a training in the Food Inspection and Sampling work and were asked to give affidavit that they have requisite qualification for the said training. From 7.1.2008, the petitioners were given training in Food Inspection and Sampling work for a period of 90 days and the certificates in this regard were issued by State Good (Health) Authority-cum-Director General Health Services, Haryana, Panchkula. Copies of the certificates are annexed as Annexures P-4 to P-6 with the writ petition. On 23.10.2008, the petitioners were conveyed that the Government had de-notified the training given to them and had further directed them to deposit their salary for the period they had undergone this training. This order is at Annexure P-7, which is impugned by the petitioners through the present writ petition. In the reply filed, it is conceded that the petitioners were allowed training through Government letter dated 18.12.2007, but this sanction has been withdrawn later. The petitioners have been directed to deposit the salary given to them for this period. When asked as to how this action on the part of the respondents would be justified, State counsel has drawn attention to Annexure P-1, which is a communication from the Commissioner and Secretary, Haryana Government, Health Department. The conditions on which the petitioners were permitted to do this training are mentioned in Annexure P-1 and these are as follows:- “1. The employee would give an affidavit to the effect Civil Writ Petition No.19498 of 2008 : 3 : that he would not claim any financial assistance and profit from the Govt. 2. The employee would be considered as departmental candidate and his time of training would be treated as a duty period. 3. That the department has to ascertain before giving the said training to the employees that the employees are possessing the requisite qualification and eligibility.” This was further clarified vide Annexure P-2 to say that no type of financial assistance and profit from the Government would be given to the petitioners if they fulfilled the eligibility criteria etc. On this basis, Mr.Rathee would contend that the petitioners have been required to deposit the salary. I am afraid, I can not accept the submission made by the State counsel. There are two clear cut conditions in the order for which permission was granted to the petitioners. The petitioners were required to give an affidavit to the effect that they would not claim any financial assistance and profit from the Government. It is clearly mentioned that the employees were to be considered as departmental candidates and the time of training was to be treated as a duty period. There is, thus, a clear distinction between the grant of financial assistance and the right of the petitioners to claim salary for this period. Once this period was to be treated as a duty, the salary would definitely be due to the petitioners, the training period being a duty. The financial assistance, in my view, is being confused with the salary. Salary would be due to the petitioners because of the fact that the period was treated as a duty. The financial assistance would be Civil Writ Petition No.19498 of 2008 : 4 : in case some fees or other charges were to be paid for this training by the petitioners. Concededly, no such charges have been claimed by the petitioners. Even otherwise, the action of the respondents in de- notifying this course or training and then directing the recovery of the amount, which was paid as a salary, cannot be justified. The petitioners were paid salary and this recovery has been effected without following the principle of natural justice. No provision has been brought to my notice whereby there could be any power with the authorities to de-sanction the training once it is received on being properly detailed by the department. In this background, the order, Annexure P-7, can also not be sustained. In future, the respondents may not detail persons for doing this training, but having detailed the petitioners to undergo this training, it will be unfair on the part of the respondents either to de-sanction or de-notify the training which they have received. The order directing recovery of the amount paid as a salary to the petitioners is set-aside. The action of the respondents in de-sanctioning this training also cannot be sustained and the same is set-aside. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. August 27, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE