Supreme Court: Nursing Course as Leave, Not Deputation. State Can Recover Excess Payments.

The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's ruling that the three-year Nursing Course period should be treated as leave, not deputation, for in-service candidates. Additionally, it affirmed the State's right to recover the excess amounts paid during this period, to be done in thirty-six equal monthly installments. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the three-year Nursing Course period should be treated as deputation or leave for in-service candidates.
2. Whether the State has the liberty to recover the excess amount paid to the original writ petitioners during their training period.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Treatment of the Three-Year Nursing Course Period
The original writ petitioners, who were working in various posts under the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, applied for a three-year General Nursing Training Course regulated by the General Nursing Training Course Rules, 1990. They sought to have this training period treated as deputation rather than leave. The Single Judge of the High Court initially allowed their petitions, directing the respondents to comply with the Apex Court’s observations in the case of Sushil Sharma and to extend the benefit of study leave with full salary to avoid discrimination. However, the Division Bench of the High Court later quashed this decision, ruling that the training period should be treated as leave, not deputation, and allowed the State to recover any excess payments made during this period.

Issue 2: Recovery of Excess Amount Paid
The Supreme Court limited its consideration to whether the State could recover the excess amounts paid to the original writ petitioners. The petitioners’ counsel argued that, based on the precedent set in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, recovery from employees in Class III and IV service is impermissible. However, the State’s counsel contended that the excess payments were not made mistakenly but were pursuant to the Single Judge’s order, which was later set aside. Therefore, on the principle of restitution, the State should be entitled to recover the excess amounts.

The Supreme Court agreed with the State, emphasizing that the principle of restitution requires that any advantage gained due to an interim order, which is later reversed, should not be retained. The Court cited the principles established in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal and South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P., affirming that the parties should be restored to their original positions before the litigation. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision, allowing the State to recover the excess amounts in thirty-six equal monthly installments starting from April 2022.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's ruling that the three-year Nursing Course period should be treated as leave, not deputation, for in-service candidates. Additionally, it affirmed the State's right to recover the excess amounts paid during this period, to be done in thirty-six equal monthly installments. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded.

---