IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, C.J., RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Pankaj Chandel - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. & Others - Respondents
LPA No. 33 of 2025
Decided On : 09-04-2025
(A) Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 - Rule 50 - Study leave - The appellant's request for study leave to pursue a fellowship was denied by the State due to a claimed shortage of doctors, which was upheld by the Single Judge - The court found that the denial was not based on a speaking order and lacked justification under the CCS Rules - The court emphasized that the State must provide reasons for such denials and that the appellant was entitled to study leave under the relevant rules. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 29)
(B) Judicial Review - The court reiterated that administrative decisions must be reasoned and that the absence of a speaking order renders the decision invalid. (Paras 10, 28)
Facts of the case:
The appellant applied for study leave to pursue a three-year fellowship in Abdominal Organ Transplantation, which was rejected by the State citing a shortage of doctors. The Single Judge upheld this decision, leading to the appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection order to be non-speaking and directed the State to grant study leave to the appellant.
Issues: The main issues were whether the State's denial of study leave was justified and whether the order was a speaking order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the State's failure to provide a reasoned order violated the principles of administrative justice, and the appellant was entitled to study leave under the CCS Rules.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.
The present Letters Patent Appeal seeks consideration of order dated 07.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 15236 of 2024 was dismissed, the prayer of the writ petitioner-appellant herein for grant of study leave was rejected and the order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-15) passed by the Special Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh was upheld.
2. The learned Single Judge was of the considered opinion that the claim as such for a period of three years for undertaking super specialty course, i.e. fellowship programme in Abdominal Organ Transplantation from IKDRC-ITS Ahmedabad, Gujarat, would be governed by the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (for short ‘the CCS Rules’) but there was no reference made to the relevant provisions of the Rules as such. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was no such provision which mandates the respondents to grant study leave in favour of the petitioner and notification dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure P-16) relied upon by the petitioner, concerned the emoluments payable to an employee, who had been granted study leave.
3. Reliance placed upon Clause 11.1.2 of the PG/Super Specialty Policy dated 27.02.2019 by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, did not find favour and the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the grant of study leave was the prerogative and concession of the employer.
4. Learned Single Judge further held that on earlier occasion in judgment dated 20.12.2007, passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1968 of 2007 State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Dr. Sanjay Vikrant, it was held that on the ground of shortage of doctors, the State Government as such was entitled to deny the benefit and relief as such could not have been prayed for, as a matter of right.
5. Learned Single Judge also placed reliance upon judgment dated 22.08.2024, passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 15486 of 2018, Vikas Chaudhary Versus Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences (UHS), Rohtak and others, wherein it was held that the concession of paid study leave was not a vested right of an employee.
6. The learned Single Judge, on the issue of discrimination, came to the conclusion that the names of three persons which had been quoted in the rejoinder were not allowed to join super specialty courses, as per the statement made by the State Counsel. Resultantly, the decision of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for grant of study leave on account of shortage of doctors was upheld.
7. At the initial stage, when this appeal came up for hearing, we had noticed on 10.01.2025 that the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-15) had never mentioned the reason as such for rejection, therefore, the right of the writ petitioner/appellant could not be curtailed by the State on the alleged reason for shortage of doctors as the improvement cannot be made in the written statement without the reason being present. The said order reads as under:-
“No. HFW-A-E015/51/2023-HEALTH-A
Government of Himachal Pradesh
Department of Health & Family Welfare
From
The Secretary (Health) to the
Government of Himachal Pradesh
To
The Director of Health Services,
Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-09
Dated: Shimla-2 the 09.12.2024.
Subject: Regarding application for study leave to pursue the fellowship in the abdominal Organ Transplantation IKDRC-ITS Ahamedabad, Gujarat in r/o Dr. Pankaj Chandel.
Sir,
I directed to refer to your office's letter No. HFW-H(I)B (3)94/24-4328 dated 03.12.2024 on the subject cited above and to say that after due consideration, the request of the said doctor has been rejected.
You are, therefore, requested to take further necessary action in the matter accordingly.
Yours faithfully.
Signed by
Suneel Sharma
Dated 9/12/24
13:08:22
Dated 09/12/2024
Add. DHS
Pvt. Secy/PA
(Suneel Sharma)
Special Secretary
(Health) to t
The court emphasized that administrative decisions must be reasoned, and the absence of a speaking order invalidates the denial of study leave under the CCS Rules.
The right to apply for study leave does not constitute a vested right, and the employer retains discretion to grant or deny such leave based on public service needs.
Probationers do not have a right to claim study leave; such leave is at the discretion of the government based on public service exigencies.
The decision to grant study leave to government servants is not a matter of right and must be considered in light of the exigencies of public service, as per Rule 50 of the Central Civil Services (Le....
Employees are entitled to study leave as per CCS (Leave) Rules if eligibility criteria are met, and the authority cannot arbitrarily deny this entitlement once it has been established.
The denial of study leave to a medical officer during a pandemic is justified when based on expert assessments of public service needs, and such decisions are not subject to judicial review unless pr....
The authority's decision to deny study leave based on previous usage and potential adverse impact on public healthcare services is valid and not discriminatory.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.