HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No. 5345 of 2010 ORDER: (per Honourable Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I and Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. At their request, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing and being disposed of at the interlocutory stage. This Writ Petition is filed by the Government inter alia seeking to assail the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.3292 of 2009 with M.A.No.4517 of 2009 dated 23.12.2009, allowing the application of the applicants, who are working as Deputy Civil Surgeons, E.S.I. Dispensary, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, for payment of salaries on par with the candidates who are being paid for the period during which they were permitted to prosecute their Post Graduation. There is no dispute of the fact that all the applicants, who are working as Deputy Civil Surgeons, E.S.I. Dispensary, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, are inservice candidates and were admitted into Osmania Medical College for Post Graduation under in-service quota pursuant to the selections made for the academic year 2008-09. The applicants would contend that as their deputation was as per Rule 11 of Sub-Rule 12 of the A.P. Medical Colleges (Admission into PG Courses) Rules, 1997, they are entitled for payment of full salaries. Earlier, O.A.No.3292 of 2009 was disposed of by the Tribunal and, subsequently, the matter was carried to this Court in W.P.Nos.23862 and 24673 of 2009. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 25.11.2009, allowed the said Writ Petitions on 25.11.2009 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for disposal afresh on merits. At that stage, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1649, Labour Employment Training and Factories (IMS) Department, dated 12.11.2009, stating that the Director of Insurance Medical Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, has sanctioned EOL from 18.06.2008 to 17.06.2011 without pay and allowances to the applicants during the prosecution of their Post Graduation. The applicants, therefore, filed an interim application in M.A.No.4517 of 2009, for amendment of the prayer in the O.A., challenging G.O.Rt.No.1649, dated 12.11.2009. After hearing both the parties and considering the material on record, the Tribunal while setting aside G.O.Rt.No.1649, dated 12.11.2009, allowed the O.A. and directed the respondents to pay salary and other allowances to the applicants during the prosecution of their Post Graduation. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that since the applicants are not discharging their duties, applying the principle of “no pay no work”, they would not be entitled to any salary and have no right to claim any relief. He would further submit that during the prosecution of their Post Graduation they were paid stipend and, therefore, the question of payment of salaries or the remaining amount deducting the stipend to the applicants does not arise. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 pointed out Rule 2(14)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996 (for short ‘1996 Rules’) to contend that the period during which he/she is selected for Post Graduation, they would be entitled to full salary and question of payment of stipend does not arise. He further clarified that the Government has paid stipend for the period the applicants had obtained stay and not for the entire period and that would not come in any way to claim their salary. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, the only point which crops up for consideration is whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the inservice candidates, who are permitted to join Post Graduation, are entitled to salary which normally they get during the prosecution of their Post Graduation. It is an undisputed fact that the applicants are inserivce candidates and are working as Civil Surgeons who are permitted to prosecute Post Graduation. That itself would not in any way call that the applicants are not inservice. It would be appropriate to refer to Rule 2(14)(a) of the Rules, which reads as under: “When he is performing the duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service or is undergoing the probation, instruction or training prescribed for such service or is deputed by the competent authority for higher studies or for undergoing training in India or abroad.” On a bare reading, it is quite apparent that apart from performing the other duties of a post, which have been contemplated therein, the candidate deputed by the competent authority for higher studies or for undergoing training in India or abroad shall be deemed to be “on duty”. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, except making a bald submission across the bar, has not brought to the notice of this Court any statutory provision in support of his contention. Apparently on the face of it, it is an extreme one. Neither it can expected to be supported by law or even on the equity of good conscience. As long as a person is an inservice candidate, his/her deputation period would be treated as “on duty” and question of non-payment of salary merely because of such deputation is wholly unsustainable. We are in entire agreement with the reasoning given by the Tribunal. Except the above submission, no other contentions have been urged nor any rule or provision is brought to the notice of this Court. We hold that all such inservice candidates, who are deputed by the competent authority for higher studies and for undergoing training in India and abroad, shall be treated as “on duty” and would be entitled to full salary, which normally they get and the question of payment of stipend and, even where stipend is paid, deduction thereof from the salary does not arise. Though the learned Government Pleader contended that the applicants are paid stipend for the entire period of prosecution of Post Graduation, according to the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 that it is only during the period of stay they are paid stipend, that does not come against the applicants and in any manner favour the petitioners. Hence, We do not find any merits in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. B.PRAKASH RAO,J B.N.RAO NALLA,J Date:28.09.2010 usd