SANT LONGOWAL INSTT. OF ENGG. & TECH. & ANR. versus SURESH CHANDRA VERMA

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 118 · Decided: 18-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 118 
SANT LONGOWAL INSTT. OF ENGG. & TECH. & ANR. 
V. 
SURESH CHANDRA VERMA 
(Civil Appeal No. 5828 of 2013) 
JULY 18, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.) 
SERVICE LAW: 
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. 
G 
H 
Granting of study leave - Object of - Explained. 
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 
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 
Rule 53, he shall be required to refund the actual amount 
F 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.