AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Savita Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and Dr. Rakesh Gosain, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2.
The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 27th May, 2008 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3948/2007.
Ordinarily we would have adverted to the facts and the justifiability of the order passed by the learned single Judge but the same is not necessary as what has been stated before us.
It is worth noting in paragraph 41 of the order impugned, the learned single Judge has directed thus:
For the foregoing reasons the order dated 3rd May, 2007 terminating the training of the Petitioner in DNB 3rd year in the Department of Medicine, Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi is set aside and the Petitioner is reinstated with a direction to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to complete his course and training in accordance with rules. The Petitioner shall also be entitled for all the consequential benefits. Petitioner is also awarded cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the Petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.
It is contended by Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, learned Counsel for the Appellant that the said order has already been complied with and the Respondent No. 1 has been allowed to undergo the training and he has been issued the certificate. It is contended by her that he has been given the requisite stipend as allowable under the rules. It is also contended by her that there is no question of grant of any consequential benefits as the Respondent No. 1 is not an employee of the Railways.
Ms. Savita Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that certain dues have been deducted by the Railways which could not have been deducted. It is put forth by her that the Appellant-Railways has deducted the amount treating him to be a certificate holder under the new rules though he was trained/enrolled under the old rules, i.e., 1992 Rules. It is also further submitted that the certificate granted to him should clearly indicate that there was no break.
Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, learned Counsel for the Appellant has fairly stated that the Respondent No. 1 shall be treated to be a trainee under the 1992 Rules for all purposes and if any benefit is to be extended, the same shall be given, if a representation indicating the computation is filed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed today. As far as the second aspect is concerned, learned Counsel has submitted that though it is obligatory on the part of the Railways to indicate the break or to state the period of training, the same would not be a disqualification for any purpose if DNB-Respondent No. 2 so accepts. On a query being made, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2-DNB has stated in all fairness at his command that the DNB shall always treat the certificate to be valid or on no score the certificate shall be held against the Respondent No. 1.
In view of the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of. The cost imposed by the learned single Judge is made easy. There shall be no further cost for this appeal.