IMPORTANT POINT
If a person availing study leave for pursing study for Ph.D. degree; not completing the course, should refund the pay allowances etc for the period.

JUDGMENT

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. The question that has come up for consideration in this 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 IIT, Kanpur, on failure to produce the certificate of obtaining the Ph.D, for which study leave was granted.

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-institute as Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering on 30.08.1993. He applied for grant of study leave for pursuing his Ph.D at IIT, 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 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 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.

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. 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. 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 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.

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 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 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 respondent, on the other hand, submitted that he has completed his course work required for the Ph.D programme, completed 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 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 tha