Supreme Court of India
SANT LONGOWAL INSTT. OF ENGG. & TECH. & ANR.versusSURESH CHANDRA VERMA
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 483
- Decided
- 18 July 2013
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- K S RADHAKRISHNAN
Holding
The institute may retain the amount already recovered but cannot recover any further sum because the bond is vague and does not expressly impose a repayment obligation under Rule 63.
Summary
The appellant institute granted a lecturer three years of study leave to pursue a Ph.D. and paid him full salary and allowances. The lecturer returned to duty but failed to produce a Ph.D. certificate, prompting the institute to recover Rs.12,32,126 paid during the leave. The High Court ordered the institute to refund the amount already recovered, but the institute appealed. The Supreme Court examined the applicability of Rule 63 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 and the terms of the bond, finding the bond vague and not expressly imposing a repayment obligation. Consequently, the Court held that the institute could not claim the balance amount, but the amount already recovered should not be refunded because public interest was harmed by the lecturer’s failure to complete the Ph.D. The appeal was allowed in part, modifying the lower courts' orders.
Issues considered
- Whether the institute is entitled to recover the full salary and allowances paid during study leave when the employee failed to obtain the Ph.D. certificate.
- Whether Rule 63 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 applies to the employee despite the bond not expressly referencing it.
- Whether the bond executed by the employee is sufficiently clear and enforceable to mandate repayment of study‑leave benefits.
- Whether the amount already recovered from the employee should be refunded.
Legislation cited
- Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972s. Rule 53, s. Rule 63
- Constitution of Indias. Article 142
Subjects
study leavePh.D. completionbond enforcementRule 63public interestgovernment employeesalary recoveryservice law
Judgment
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 118
A SANT LONGOWAL INSTT. OF ENGG. & TECH. & ANR.
V.
SURESH CHANDRA VERMA
(Civil Appeal No. 5828 of 2013)
JULY 18, 2013
B
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.)
SERVICE LAW:
c
Study leave - Availed by Lecturer to pursue Ph.D. course
- Certificate for completion of study course not produced -
Recovery of salary and other benefits paid during the period
of study leave - Held: A candidate who avails of leave but
0 takes no interest to complete the course and does not furnish
the certificate to that effect, is doing a disservice to the institute
as well as its students - Public money cannot be spent unless
there is mutual benefit - However, in the instant case,
considering the fact that the bond executed by respondent is
E found to be vague, there is no reason for appellant-institute
to recover the balance amount from him -- But the amount
already recovered be not refunded, since public interest has
suffered due to non-obtaining of Ph.D by respondent after
availing of entire salary and other benefits - This order is
made taking into consideration all aspects of the matter and
F to do complete justice between the parties - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Art. 142 - Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules,
1972 - rr.53(5) and 63.
Granting of study leave - Object of - Explained.
G
The respondent, a Lecturer in the appellant Institute,
after availing of study leave for three years to pursue
Ph.D. course, resumed his duties as Lecturer in the
Institute, but failed to produce the certificate of obtaining
H 118
SANT LONGOWAL INSTT. OF ENGG. & TECH. v. 119
SURESH CHANDRA VERMA
the Ph.D. for which study leave was granted. The A
appellant-Institute took steps to recover the amount of
Rs.12,32, 126/- paid to the respondent during the period
of study leave. The writ petition filed by the respondent
was allowed by the single Judge of the High Court and
the Institute was directed to refund with interest the B
amount already recovered from him. The appeal of the
Institute was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High
Court.
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court
c
HELD: 1.1 The specific case of the appellant before
this Court is that the respondent is governed by the
provisions of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules,
1972 forming part of the Fundamental Rules and
Supplementary Rules, though the question as to whether
0
r. 63 of the 1972 Rules is also applicable to the
respondent was not specifically urged by the appellant-
institute before the High Court. [para 10 and 13] [124-D;
128-8]
1.2 Rule 63 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules E
1972 mandates that if a Government servant resigns or
retires from service or otherwise quits service without
returning to duty after a period of study leave or within a
period of three years after such return to duty or fails to
complete the course of study and is, thus, unable to
furnish the certificates as required under sub-rule (5) of F
Rule 53, he shall be required to refund the actual amount
of leave salary, study allowance, cost of fees, travelling
and other expenses, if any, incurred by the Government
of India. The provision has a laudable object to achieve.
The purpose of granting study leave with salary and other G
benefits is for the interest of the Institution and also the
person concerned so that once he comes back and joins
the institute, the students will be benefited by the
knowledge and expertise acquired by the person at the
expense of the institute. [para 14-15] [129-G-H; 130-A-B,
C-D] H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2'013] 8 S.C.R.
A 1.3 A candidate who avails of leave but takes no
interest to complete the course and does not furnish the
cert\ficate to that effect, is doing a disservice to the
institute as well as to its students. Such a person only
enjoys the period of study leave without doing any work
B at the institute and, at the same time, enjoys the salary
and other benefits, which is evidentially not in public
interest. Public money cannot be spent unless there is
mutual benefit. [para 15] [130-D-F]
1.4 In the instant case, there is no clear cut provision
C in the bond either expressly referring to Rule 63 or strictly
imposing a condition that if a candidate fails to complete
the course study during the period of sanctioned leave,
he will have to refund to the Institute the total amount of
leave, salary and other benefits availed of by him during
D the period of study leave. However, such a specific
provision was incorporated in bond by the Board of
Governors of the appellant-institute in its 22nd meeting
held on 28.06.2002. [para 10-11] (124-D-F]
E 1.5 The appellant-Institute has already recovered an
amount of Rs.6.5 lacs from the salary and arrears of
salary of the respondent and claims balance amount of
Rs.6,18,000/-. Considering the fa«ts and circumstances of
the case and the fact that the bond executed by the
respondent is found to be vague, there is no reason for
F the appellant-Institute to recover the balance amount from
him. But, the amount already _recovered be not refunded,
since public interest has definitely suffered due to non_.
obtaining of Ph.D by the respondent after availing of the
entire salary and other benefits. This order is made taking
G into consideration all aspects of the matter and to do
complete justice between the parties. [para 16-17] [130-
G-H; 131-A-C] .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
H 5828 of 2013.
SANT LONGOWAL INSTT. OF ENGG. & TECH. v. 121
SURESH CHANDRA VERMA
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2012 of the A
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 363
of 2012.
Ajay Jain, B.N. Gaur, Jinendra Jain for the Appellants.
Himanshu Shekhar for the Respondent. B
The Judgment of the Co1,1rt was delivered by
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The question that has come up for consideration in this C
appeal is whether the appellant-institute is justified, in directing
the respondent to refund the entire amount of Rs.12,32, 126/-
paid to him towards salary and other allowances for pursuing
Ph.D studies at llT, Kanpur, on failure to produce the certificate
of obtaining the Ph.D, for which study leave was granted. D
3. The appellant-institute was established by the Ministry
of Human Resource & Development, Government of India in the
year 1989 and has been fully funded by the Central
Government. The respondent joined the service in the appellant- E
institute as Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering on 30.08.1993.
He applied for grant of study leave for pursuing his Ph.D at llT,
Kanpur. The competent authority acceded to that request and
granted three years study leave commencing from 24.07.1999
to 22.07.2002. The respondent after executing necessary bond
F
proceeded on study leave on 24.07.1999 and three years
period was completed on 24.07.2002. Due to various reasons,
the respondent could not complete his Ph.D studies and he
joined back in service as Lecturer in the Institute in November
2003. The respondent was asked to produce the completion
certificate of the Ph.D course which respondent could not G
produce, hence, the appellant-institute demanded the refund of
the amount of Rs. 12,32, 126/- paid to him during the period of
study for pursuing Ph.D as per the terms and conditions of bond
executed by the respondent.
H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R.
A 4. Aggrieved by the steps taken by the appellant-institute
to recover the amount, the respondent filed Civil Writ Petition
No. 12555 of 2010 before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana.
B Writ Petition was allowed by learned Single Judge vide
judgment dated 02.02.2012 quashing the demand notice and
also ordered refund of the amount already recovered with
interest from the respondent.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred LPA No.
C 363 of 2012 before the Division Bench of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana and the High Court vide judgment dated
23.08.2012 took the view that the appellant could not point out
any term in the bond executed by the respondent that he had
to complete the Ph.D programme within a period of three years
D and that the only condition was that the respondent had to serve
for a period of six years after joining service on the expiry of
the study leave. The appeal was dismissed by the Division
Bench of the High Court.
E 6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of the
High Court, this appeal has been preferred.
7. Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submitted that the High Court has completely
misunderstood terms and conditions on which the respondent
F was granted study leave which is reflected in the bond executed
by the respondent on 5.05.1999. Learned counsel submitted
that the High Court has completely ignored the salutary principle
of "no work no pay'' and that the respondent during the period
of study not only not worked in the appellant-institute but also
G was not successful in obtaining the Ph.D. Consequently, neither
the institute, the respondent nor the students have been
.... benefited and public money has been spent for no use .
8. Shri Himanshu Shekhar, learned counsel for the
H respondent, on the other hand, submitted that he has completed
SANT LONGOWAL INSTT. OF ENGG. & TECH. v. 123
SURESH CHANDRA VERMA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
his course work required for the Ph.D programme, completed A
comprehensive examination etc. but the thesis could not be
completed due to retirement of the guide. Further, it was
pointed out that the respondent had also made a written
request on 24.05.2002 seeking extension of six months period
so that the respondent could complete his thesis work. Another B
representation was made on 04.06.2002 and all those
representations left unattended. Under such circumstances, he
had to join duty without obtaining Ph.D. Learned counsel also
pointed out that similarly situated employee named Abanish
Kumar Singh was provided extension of time but the same was c
not done in the case of the respondent. Further, it was pointed
out that there is no condition in the bond that if the respondent
could not complete the Ph.D then the entire salary and other
benefits could be recovered from the respondent. Learned
counsel pointed out that the High Court has rightly interpreted 0
terms and conditions of bond, consequently the demand made
for the reimbursement of the salary and other allowances is not
justified.
9. We have gone through terms and conditions of the bond
executed by the respondent on 05.05.1999. Some of the E
relevant portions of the bond read as follows:
"Whereas I, Suresh Chandra Varma, am granted (kind of
leave) by the Institute.
F
And whereas for the better protection of the Institute, I have
agreed to execute this Bond with such conditions as
hereunder is written.
Now the condition of the above written obligation is that in
the event of my failing of resume duty, or resigning or G
retiring from service or otherwise quitting service without
returning from duty after the expiry of termination of the
period of study leave or at any time within a period of three
years after my return to duty, I shall forthwith pay to the
institute or as may be directed by the Institute, on demand, H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R.
A pay & allowances received by me during study leave, the
said amount of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) together
with interest thereon from the date of demand at Govt. rates
for the time being in force on Govt. loan.
And upon my making such payment the above written
B
obligation shall be avoided and of no effect, otherwise I
shall be and remain in full force and virtue.
The bond shall in all respects be governed by the laws of
India for the time being in force and the rights and liabilities
c hereunder shall, where necessary, be accordingly
determined by the appropriate c0urts in India."
10. Further, it is the specific case of the appellant that the
respondent herein is governed by the provisions of the Central
0 Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 forming part of the
Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules, Part Ill framed
by the C.onstitution of India. We notice there "is no clear cut
provision in the bond either expressly referring to Rule 63 or
strictly imposing a condition that if a candidate fails to complete
E the course study during the period of sanctioned leave, he will
have to refund to the appellant-institute the total amount of leave,
salary and other benefits availed of by him during the period
of study leave.
11. Of late, such a specific provision was incorporated in
F bond by the Board of Governors of the appellant-institute in its
22nd meeting held on 28.06.2002, which reads as follows:
TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT IN BOND
CONDITIONS TO BE EXECUTED BY THE FACULTY
G MEMBERS WHILE PROCEEDING ON STUDY LEAVE.
The Board of Governors of the Institute in its 22nd meeting
held on 28.06.2002 decided that a faculty member, who
is granted study leave for possessing higher education
such as M.E./M.Tech. and Ph.D, he/she is required to
H
SANT LONGOWAL INSTT. OF ENGG. & TECH. v. 125
SURES~ CHANDRA VERMA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
execute a bond to serve the Institute for double the period A
of study leave after returning from study leave.
The conditions of the bond are silent on the point when a
faculty member resume his/her duty but fails to produce the
educational qualifying certificate for which he/she was B
sanctioned study leave.
Following provision may kindly be allowed to be
incorporated in the proforma of bond to be executed by a
faculty member while prbceeding on study leave I extra
ordinary leave of study I special leave for training I C
sabbatical leave on the pattern of Central Government
Rules to avoid legal complicacy.
Proforma of bond presently filled Proposed Proforma of bond
by a faculty members while to be filled by a faculty
members while proceeding
D
proceeding on study leave I extra
ordinary leave of study/special on study leave/extra
leave for training/sabbatical leave ordinary leave of study I
special leave for training I
sabbatical leave.
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE E
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE
PRESENTS THAT PRESENTS THAT I,
I ,_________ resident of ______ resident of
- - · - - - - - at present - - - - in the district of
_________ at present
employed as in
the Sant Longowal Institute of employed as in the F
Engineering & Technology, do Sant LongowaUnstitute of
?
hereby bi.nd myself and my Engineering & Technology, do
heirs, executors and hereby bind myself and my
administrators to pay to the heirs, execut'Ors and
Director, Sant Longowal administrators to -pay to the G
Institute of Engineering & DirectoF, Sant l.ongowal
Technology (hereinafter called Institute of Engineering &
the Institute) on demand the Technology (hereinafter called
sum of the Institute) the total amount
Rs. · (Rs. only) o( leave salary and other H
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R.
A together with interest thereon expenses incurred by the
from the date of demand at Institute, if any, along with bond
Government rates for the time money prescribed the Institute
being in force on Government together with interest thereon
loans or, if payment is made from the date of demand at
B in a country other than India, Government Rates for the time
the equivalent of the said being in force on Government
amount in the currency of that loans or if payment is made in
country converted at the a country other than India, the
official rate of exchange equivalent of the said amount
C between that country and India in the currency of that country
AND TOGETHER WITH all converted at the official rate of
costs between attorney and exchange between that country
client and all charges and and India AND TOGETHER
expenses that shall/or may WITH all costs between
D have incurred by the Institute. attorney and client and all
charges and expenses that
WHEREAS I,
am granted f
(k" d 0 shall/or may have incurred by
m the Institute.
leave) by Institute.
WHEREAS I,
E AND WHEREAS for the better am granted
protection of the Institute, I --------(kind of leave)
have agreed to execute this by Institute.
bond with ~uch_ condition as AND WHEREAS FOR THE
hereunder is written BETTER protection of the
F NOW THE CONDITION OF Institute, I have agreed to
THE ABOVE WRITTEN execute this bond with such
OBLIGATION IS THAT in the condition as hereunder is
event of my failing to resume written.
duty, or resigning or retiring AND WHEREAS for the better
G fro_m_ service ~r othe_rwise protection of the Institute, I have
qu1ttm_g service without agreed to execute this bond
returning to duty after the with such condition as
expiry of termination of the hereunder is written.
period of study leave or at any
H time within a double the period NOW THE CONDITION OF
SANT LONGOWAL INSTT. OF ENGG. & TECH. v. 127
SURESH CHANDRA VERMA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
of study leave after my return THE ABOVE WRITTEN A
to duty, I shall forthwith pay to OBLIGATION IS THAT in the
the Institute or as may be, event of my failing to resume
directed by the Institute on duty, or resigning or retiring
demand, the said sum of from service or otherwise
Rs.--------------on Iy quitting service without returning B
together with interest thereon to duty after the expiry or
from the date of demand at termination of the period of
Government Rates for the time study leave or failing to
being in force on Government complete the course of study or
loans. at any time within the period of c
. sanctioned leave after my
AND upon my making ~uch return to duty, I shall forthwith
payment the above written pay to the Institute the total
obligation shall b~ v~id and of amount of leave salary and
no effect, ?th~rw1se it shall be other expenses incurred by the
D
a~d remain in full force and Institute, if any, along with bond
virtue. money prescribed by the
The bond shall in all respects Institute together with interest
be governed by laws of India thereon from the date of
for the time being in force and demand. at Go~ern~ent Rates E
the rights and liabilities for the time being m force on
hereunder shall, where Government loans.
necessary, be accordingly AND upon my making such
determined by the appropriate payment the above written
courts in India. obligation shall be void and of F
no effect, otherwise it shall be
The Institute has agreed to and remain in full force and
bear the stamp duty payable virtue.
on this bond.
The bond shall in all respects be
Signed and dated this governedbythelawsoflndiafor G
______day of one the time being in force and the
thousand nine hundred and rights and liabilities hereunder
signed and delivered by in the shall, where necessary, be
presence of accordingly determined by the
appropriate courts in India. H
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R.
A 12. The above mentioned clause was inserted in the
absence of a specific clause to that effect in the bond executed
by the faculty members.
13. The question as to whether Rule 63 referred to above
is also applicable to the respondent was not seen specifically
8
urged by the appellant-institute either before the learned Single
Judge or before the Division Bench, hence, the High Court had
no occasion to e~amine its applicability. In this connection, we
may refer to Rule 63 which reads as follows:
c "63. Resignation or retirement after study leave or
non-completion of the course of study.
(1) If a Government servant resigns or retires from
service or otherwise quits service without returning to duty
D after a period of study leave or within a period of three
years after such return to duty or fails to complete the
course of study and is thus unable to furnish the certificate
as required under sub-rule (5) of Rule 53 he shall be
required to refund-
E (i) The actual amount of leave salary, study
allowance, cost of fees, travelling and other expenses, if
any, incurred by the Government of India; and
(ii) The actual amount, if any, of the cost incurred by
F other agencies such as foreign Government, Foundations
and Trusts in connection with the course of study, together
with int~rest thereon at rates for the time being in force on
Government loans from the date of demand, before his
resignation is accepted or permission to retire is granted
G or his quitting service otherwise.:
(iii) Provided that except in the case of employees
who fail to complete the course of study nothing in this rule
shall apply -
H
SANT LONGOWAL INSTT. OF ENGG. & TECH. v. 129
SURESH CHANDRA VERMA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
(a) To a Government servant who, after return to duty A
from study leave, is permitted to retire from service on
medical grounds; or
(b) To a Government servant who, after return to duty
from study leave, is deputed to serve in any Statutory or
B
Autonomous Body or Institution under the control of the
Government and is subsequently permitted to resign from
service under the Government with a view to his permanent
absorption in the said Statutory or Autonomous body or
Institution in the public interest.
c
(2) (a) The study leave availed of by such
Government servant shall be converted into regular leave
standing at his credit on the date on which the study leave
commenced, any regular leave taken in continuation of
study leave being suitably adjusted for the purpose and the D
balance of the period of study leave, if any, which cannot
be so converted, treated as extraordinary leave.
(b) In addition to the amount to be refunded by the
Government servant under sub-rule (1), he shall be required
E
to refund any excess of leave salary actually drawn over
the leave salary admissible on conversion of the study
leave.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule,
the President may, if it is necessary or expedient to do so, F
either in public interest or haviog regard to the peculiar
circumstances of the case or class of cases, by order,
waive or reduce the amount required to be refunded under
sub-rule(1) by the Government servant concerned or class
of Government servant." G
14. If a Government servant resigns or retires from service
or otherwise quits service without returning to duty after a
period of study leave or within a period of three years after such
return to duty or fails to ~omplete the course of study and is thus
H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R.
A unable to furnish the certificates as required under sub-rule (5)
of Rule 53, he shall be required to refund the actual amount of
leave salary, study allowance, cost of fees, travelling and other
expenses, if any, incurred by the Government of India.
15. The above mentioned provision has a laudable object
8
to achieve. A Government servant or person like the
respondent is given study leave with salary and allowances etc.
so as to enable him to complete the course of study and to
furnish the certificate of his successful completion, so that the
C institute which has sanctioned the study leave would achieve
the purpose and object for granting such study leave. The
purpose of granting study leave with salary and other benefits
is for the interest of the Institution and also the person
concerned so that once he comes back and joins the institute
the students will be benefited by the knowledge and expertise
D acquired by the person at the expense of the institute. A
candidate who avails of leave but takes no interest to complete
the course and does not furnish the certificate to that effect is
doing a disservice to the institute as well as the students of the
institute. In other words, such a person only enjoys the period
E of study leave without doing any work at the institute and, at the
same time, enjoys the salary and other benefits, which is
evidentially not in public interest. Public money cannot be spent
unless there is mutual benefit. Further, if the period of study
leave was not extended or no decision was taken on his
F representation, he could have raised his grievances at the
appropriate forum.
16. We notice that the appellant-institute has already
recovered an amount of Rs.6.5 lacs as monthly installments
G from the salary of the respondent and the appellant-institute has
also recovered an amount of Rs.1. 75,000/- from the salary of
the respondent and Rs.4,75,000/- from the arrears of revised
scales admissible to the respondent with effect from
01.01.2006 and as such approximately Rs.6,50,000/- has been
H
SANT LONGOWAL INSTT. OF ENGG. & TECH. v. 131
SURESH CHANDRA VERMA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
recovered from the respondent. Now the appellant-institute A
claims balance amount of Rs.6, 18,000/-.
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and considering the fact that the bond executed by the
respondent is found to be vague, we find no reason for the
8
appellant-institute to recover the balance amount of
Rs.6, 18,000/- from the respondent but the amount already
recovered be not refunded, since public interest has definitely
suffered due to non-obtaining of Ph.D by the respondent after
availing of the entire salary and other benefits. We do so taking C
into consideration all aspects of the matter and to do complete
justice between the parties.
18. Appeal is allowed to the above extent and the judgment
of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench is modified
accordingly and no further amount be recovered by the D
appellant-institute from the respondent.
.. R.P. Appeal partly allowed .
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "study leave"Sign in to search