In LPA-836-2017 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- It cannot be expected that all benefits available to employee in previous employment would be carried forward to next employment even if employee chooses not to take his previous employer in confidence: P&H HC
Justices Augustine George Masih and Vikram Aggarwal [30-01-2023]

Read Order: Vikas Malik v. State of Haryana and Others

Monika  Rahar

Chandigarh, January 31, 2023: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that the government invests time and finances in each and every employee and expects them to be sincere and loyal. It is the choice of an employee to pursue his career and to seek opportunities which suit him the best but it cannot be expected that all benefits available as an employee in the previous employment would be carried forward to the next employment even if the employee chooses not to take his previous employer in confidence. 

This LPA before the Bench of Justices Augustine George Masih and Vikram Aggarwal challenged the judgement of the Single Bench via which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 

In the writ petition, the appellant challenged the order of the respondents declining the request of the appellant for the grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) to pursue the postgraduate course against the reserved HCMS quota in PGIMS, Rohtak. 

Essentially, the appellant was a MBBS doctor and worked as a Demonstrator on contract basis in PGIMS, Rohtak from 2005 to 2009. After that, he worked as a Medical Officer in Haryana Civil Medio 2/9 c (HCMS) from 2009 for a year. Thereafter, he was selected as a Medical Officer in the ESI Health Centres and in pursuance of the same, he was relieved from the Health Department, Haryana. 

Appointment letter was issued for his appointment as a Medical Officer in the ESI Health Care Department. He was desirous of pursuing his post graduation from PGIMS, Rohtak and other government institutions against the seats reserved for in service candidates. However, only doctors who had completed four years of regular satisfactory service including two years of rural service were eligible for the same. 

The appellant initially requested for an NOC in 2015-2016. Since he was not given the NOC, he filed a writ. The writ was dismissed. 

The question which arose before the Court was whether the appellant was eligible to be considered for a postgraduate seat in PGIMS and other government medical colleges against the reserved HCMS quota. 

The Court did not find any illegality in the impugned decision on the ground that it had joined the ESI Health Care Department in 2010 as a direct recruit and had not applied for the said post through proper channel as a result of which his lien was not retained by the Health Department, Haryana. 

The Bench added that the rationale behind such decisions appeared to be the non-extension of the benefit of service rendered in a department to a person who changed his employment without the knowledge or notice of his previous employer. 

"It has to be borne-in-mind that the government invests time and finances in each and every employee and expects them to be sincere and loyal. No doubt, it is the choice of an employee to pursue his career and to seek opportunities which suit him the best", the Bench observed while adding, 

"At the same time, it cannot be expected that all benefits available as an employee in the previous employment would be carried forward to the next employment even if the employee chooses not to take his previous employer in confidence". 

Adverting to the present case, the Bench opined that had the appellant applied for a job in the ESI Department through proper channel, things may have been different.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Court dismissed the appeal.