Leave is not a matter of right and can be refused if the exigency of service demands. Employers have the discretion to judge the exigencies and consider whether leave should be granted to a particular employee.

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. Respondent No. 1 herein is an employee of the petitioner No. 1, namely, Comptroller and Auditor General of India (hereinafter referred to as "CAG.). In the year 2005, he was holding the post of Assistant Auditor Officer (for short, "AAO.) in the office of Accountant General, Sikkim when he was selected for an assignment posting at the office of Principal Director (Audit), London. Letter dated 20.7.2005 was addressed by the CAG to the Accountant General (Audit), Sikkim informing that posting of the respondent No. 1 in the said office at London had been approved as the incumbent therein was completing his term on 24.11.2005. In this letter, there was a specific stipulation that this posting was for a period of three years and willingness of the respondent No. 1 to serve for that term was sought. The respondent No. 1 was given the aforesaid offer and in response he gave the following undertaking dated 26.7.2005:

UNDERTAKING

With reference to HQ letter No. 3658/GE-I/144/2005, dt. 20.07.2005, I hereby certify that I am willing to work in the HQ office, after return from overseas posting, for three years.

2. Thereupon letter dated 12.8.2005 was issued by the CAG stipulating the terms of his posting to London office. In paras 3 & 4 thereof it was mentioned that he would be liable to serve in CAG for a period of three years after completion of his posting abroad and in case "he does not return after completion of approved tenure, by reasons of resignation or otherwise, he will refund to the Government of India the expenditure incurred on payment of-" His initial posting was for a period of two years, extendable by another one year. This extension was given. The tenure of the respondent No. 1 at London office began on 25.11.2005 and three years period expired on 24.11.2008.

3. Few months before this tenure was to come to an end, the respondent No. 1 moved the application dated 9.8.2008 whereby he requested for ex-India leave for 272 days, i.e. from 3.12.2008 to 31.8.2009. Ground given was that his son was admitted in a school in London and was studying in "O-Level of GCSE., i.e. 11th Standard in the current academic year 2008-09. This was equivalent to Class-X of CBSE standard of India. This academic year is to be completed by the end of August 2009. He submitted in this application that any movement at this stage to India would seriously hamper the studies of his son and he would be compelled to get him enrolled in India in Class-IX and, thus, in the process he would be losing two years of his career. He also pointed out that there is difference of teaching syllabus in UK and Indian system of school education and change at this crucial stage would be detrimental to his interest. He assured the CAG that during his stay at London, on the sanction of ex-India leave, he would support himself and his family out of his personal savings.

4. The competent authority, after considering the aforesaid application, agreed to sanction the leave only for a period of one month, i.e. from 3.12.2008 to 3.1.2009, and sent communication dated 6.10.2008 conveying this approval to the High Commission of India at London. Obviously, the respondent No. 1 was not satisfied with sanction of only one month leave. He, therefore, challenged the communication dated 6.10.2008 by filing OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the request of the respondent No. 1 vide its judgment dated 19.12.2008 directing the CAG to grant sanction of ex-India leave to the respondent as applied by him. Assailing that order, present writ petition is filed by the CAG.

5. In this petition, Union of India is impleaded as respondent No. 2 and High Commission of India at London as respondent No. 3. They are proforma parties and have been impleaded because of the reason that respondent No. 1, in his OA, had impleaded them as parties.

6. Perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal would reveal that the Tribunal had considered the applicab