The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has held that government employees who pursue postgraduate studies without obtaining prior official deputation or permission cannot claim entitlement to salary for the period of such absence. A Division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar ruled that Article 44-A of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956, does not provide cover for period of absence for higher education that has not been officially authorized.
In the case before the court, two doctors were central respondents. They had been appointed as Assistant Surgeons / Medical Officers under a government order issued in 2011, at which time both of them were already enrolled in postgraduate medical courses at the Government Medical College, Jammu. Neither of them had physically joined duty in their respective health department roles at the time of appointment; one had submitted a joining report through the principal of the medical college, and the other formally joined in 2011 but continued his studies at the college. These respondents were relieved from the college once their courses were complete in 2013 and then submitted their joining reports to the Directorate of Health Services, from which point they began performing their official duties. However, they claimed that they had been entitled to salary and allowances for the period during which they were undergoing studies, a claim rejected by the government.
The respondents challenged this denial before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench. The Tribunal accepted their plea, holding that Article 44-A entitled them to pay for that period, and directed their salary and allowances be disbursed. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision, the government filed a writ petition before the High Court.
The High Court overturned the Tribunal’s decision. It held that Article 44-A cannot be extended to cover postgraduate or specialized studies pursued without an official deputation. The Court noted that the provision is applicable only when the government servant is deputed to undergo training or instructive courses within the State, courses that are connected with the employee's duty profile, and not for specialized or professional courses lasting beyond a prescribed duration. The Court pointed to the proviso that excludes courses of higher or specialized professional training extending beyond eight weeks from the benefit of Article 44-A.
Because the respondents were never officially deputed to pursue their postgraduate courses, their absence was deemed unauthorized. The Court observed that they had effectively abandoned their duties without formal permission. It also noted that at the time of their appointment they were already engaged in postgraduate studies, further negating any possibility of official sanction. Consequently, the High Court held that the respondents were not entitled to salary or allowances for that period of absence.
The Court further observed that since the respondents were still within probation, they were not eligible to seek study leave under the J&K Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1979. Therefore, their absence could not be regularized under leave rules. The judgment directed that the employees who pursue higher studies must obtain prior permission from the employer, failing which such period of study would count as unauthorized absence. In addition, the Court directed the government to establish a regulatory mechanism to address such cases in the future.
In allowing the writ petition and setting aside the Tribunal’s order, the High Court reaffirmed that unauthorized absence—even for higher education—does not justify payment of salary, unless valid deputation or official sanction is granted before the absence commenced.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.