State Of Punjab vs Sanjay Kumar Bansal

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2009 Supreme(SC) 1246

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM
State Of Punjab & Others
Versus
Dr. Sanjay Kumar Bansal
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4532 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 29265 of 2008)
Decided on : 16-07-2009

Important Points

Special leave for self-employment is not a vested right but is subject to administrative exigencies. Courts should not interfere with such administrative decisions, especially regarding staffing shortages, unless factual malafides are proven.

Subject

Service Law - Employee Leave and Benefits

Headnote

(A) Service Law - Special leave for self-employment - Right to leave - Special leave is not a matter of right vested in the employee and depends on administrative exigencies - A policy that merely categorizes employees eligible to apply for special leave does not confer an absolute right to obtain such leave - Where refusal is based on a shortage of manpower, such decisions fall under administrative exigencies and courts cannot sit in appeal over them.

(B) Discrimination in grant of leave - Administration's discretion to consider contingencies, seniority, nature of work, and responsibilities when deciding applications - Interference by the court is not warranted in the absence of pleaded factual malafides.

Facts of the case:
A medical officer applied for special leave for self-employment. The application was refused by the administration citing a shortage of doctors. The High Court subsequently directed the administration to grant the officer five years of special leave on the ground of alleged discrimination in the grant of such leave to others.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the High Court erred in its conclusion as the policy did not confer a vested right to leave and the administration's decision was based on valid administrative exigencies.

Issues: Whether special leave for self-employment is a vested right of an employee and whether the court can interfere with an administrative decision to refuse leave based on operational exigencies.

Ratio Decidendi: Special leave is not a vested right but is subject to administrative exigencies; courts should not substitute their view for the administration's decision on such matters unless factual malafides are established.

Result: Civil Appeal allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:H.M. Singh, Ms. Jasmeet Kaur, Praveen Kumar, Kuldip Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents:A. Venayagam Balan, Advocate.

Judgment :-

Kapadia, J.

Leave granted.

The short question which arises for determination in this case is whether the High Court was right in directing the Administration to grant special leave of five years for self employment to the respondent on the ground of alleged discrimination in grant of such special leave to others and not to the respondent.

Special leave is not a matter of right vested in the employee. It depends on the administrative exigencies. In the present case the respondent is working as a Medical Officer. He had applied for special leave for three years under the Scheme which is Annexure P-3 collectively in the Special Leave Petition Paper Book. We have gone through Annexure P-3. It merely categorizes employees who are entitled to apply for special leave and those who cannot apply for special leave. Such policy does not confer any right on the applicant to obtain special leave. On facts, the question of striking down the Order of Administration does not arise for the simple reason that in the counter the Administration has stated that shortage of doctors is one of reasons for not granting special leave. In our view these are matters which fall in the category of "administrative exigencies" and this Court cannot sit in Appeal thereon. In the circumstances, the High Court had erred in coming to the conclusion that the Management had erred in refusing the application for want of reasons.

Even on the case of discrimination it is for the Administration/Management to take into account the contingencies which may arise in the course of administration. The services of an employee may be required in a given case on more emergent basis vis-à-vis other employees. In such cases the services rendered by an employee, his seniority, the nature of work which he is required to do, his responsibilities etc. are required to be taken into account while taking decision on such applications. Lastly, it may be stated that in the Original Writ Petition, factual malafides have not been pleaded by the respondent.

In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.

The Civil Appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs.