Govt. Can't Recover Study Leave Benefits Given To An In-service Employee, Even If He Is Unsuccessful In The Exams:Karnataka HC [Read Judgment]

Update: 2019-07-10 02:23 GMT
story

The Karnataka High Court has said that government cannot recover the study leave benefits given to an in-service employee, even if he is unsuccessful in the exams that he appeared. A division bench of Justice L Narayanan Swamy and Justice R Devdas while setting aside the show cause notice issued to a primary school teacher seeking to recover the salary and allowances granted said; " On...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Karnataka High Court has said that government cannot recover the study leave benefits given to an in-service employee, even if he is unsuccessful in the exams that he appeared.

A division bench of Justice L Narayanan Swamy and Justice R Devdas while setting aside the show cause notice issued to a primary school teacher seeking to recover the salary and allowances granted said;

" On a closer reading of Clause 10, (Karnataka Civil Service Rules) we find that the intention of the legislature is to terminate the period of deputation, when it is found that the Government servant is not making sufficient progress in the studies and continuation of providing leave salary and allowances would be a wasteful expenditure and burden on the State exchequer. Nowhere in the scheme of grant of study leave, it is to be found that if the Government servant who had availed study leave and the benefits flowing from the leave granted, if unsuccessful, irrespective of whether such Government servant joining duty, without seeking further extension of the study leave, is required to repay the study leave benefits."

Ravi Prakash, an assistant school teacher in Hassan District was in 2012 granted ten months leave, by the Commissioner of Public Instructions to appear for the Hindi Shikshan Parangath course. He undertook the exam during April May, 2014. Out of nine subjects he cleared eight. Since he was not allowed to take the remaining exam he approached the court in 2015 which directed the Central Institute of Hindi to permit him to take the exam. Due to work and the centre being in Agra he could not take the exam in 2015.

On November 11, 2015, the authorities issues him a show cause notice calling upon him to explain as to why the salary and allowances paid to him during the study leave period should not be recovered from his salary. A reply was given by the petitioner. Not being satisfied with the reply, an endorsement was issued to the petitioner, while the Deputy Director of Public Instructions (DDPI) directed the Block Education Officer of Hassan District, to recover the leave period salary and allowances paid to the petitioner herein from his monthly salary and to deposit the same to the Government Head of Account.

Petitioner approached the court seeking a direction to be allowed to appear for the exam in april- may 2016, which was allowed. The same was communicated to the authorities asking them not to deduct the salary. But since no positive response was forthcoming, he move the tribunal which dismissed his plea. This he moved the high court.

It was argued that there is no time stipulation made in the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, (hereinafter referred to as 'KCSR') to pass the examination. Secondly, it was contended that the study leave was granted for a period of ten months. During the year 2013-14, and thereafter, the petitioner has joined duty and did not seek any further leave to complete the examination in the remaining subject.

Further, no other employee who availed the in-service study leave and failed to complete the course at one stretch was visited with recovery proceedings, while the petitioner herein has been singled out for a discriminatory treatment.

The court after going through the relevant clauses of the rules said "Prima facie, we find that the show-cause notice issued by the respondent is not in compliance with Clause 10 of Appendix-II-A of the KCSR. Therefore, while setting aside the show-cause notice dated November 11, 2015, we grant liberty to the respondent State Government to issue a fresh show-cause notice, only if it is satisfied that recovery is necessary, Till then no recovery shall be made."

While setting aside the order of the tribunal and the show cause notice the bench said "The respondents are also directed to repay any amount recovered from the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

Click here to Download the Order


Tags:    

Similar News