JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant the Ex-India leave/NOC to the petitioner under PG-1 Visitor Visa by considering his case and documents submitted by him from time to time to respondents/Corporation as sought by them as recommended by DS Division, PSPCL, Mansa and Superintending Engineer, Bathinda. It is further prayed that the petitioner be held entitled to special cost to be awarded in his favour for driving him to knock at the doors of this Court for the relief which could and should have been granted as the action of the official respondents in not granting the Ex-India leave/NOC/PG- 1 Visitor Visa to the petitioner exemplifies the typical bureaucratic attitude and deserves severe condemnation for harassing the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is serving as an Assistant Engineer with respondent/PSPCL and he had sought 30 days Ex-India leave vide application dated 01.12.2025 for the bona fide purpose of attending the convocation ceremony of his son, namely, Parvinder Singh, who has successfully completed his police training and whose ceremony is scheduled for 06.03.2026, and the petitioner has already booked air tickets for himself and his wife in anticipation of approval thereby demonstrating the genuineness and urgency of the request. He further submits that the petitioner applied through proper channel and his request has been duly recommended by the DS Division, Mansa as well as the Superintending Engineer, Bathinda, yet the competent authority has failed to accord approval or communicate any decision regarding the Ex-India leave/NOC to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that such delay has caused mental agony to the petitioner and the same would also result in financial loss if the leave is not sanctioned to the petitioner on time. He further contends that the action of the respondents/PSPCL is discriminatory, inasmuch as similar permissions have been granted to other similarly situated employees vide Memos dated 28.04.2023 and 16.06.2025 (Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively). Lastly, he submits that the impugned inaction on the part of the respondents/PSPCL is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. Per contra, Ms. Samanpreet Kaur, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondents/PSPCL, and filed her Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.

3.1. Learned counsel for the respondents/PSPCL submits that the petitioner has no vested right to seek the Ex-India leave and in the absence of No Objection Certificate, his request cannot be allowed, however, she is not in a position to deny the fact that the petitioner has sought 30 days Ex-India leave vide letter dated 01.12.2025.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has sought Ex-India leave on 01.12.2025 for a period of 30 days to attend the convocation ceremony of his son, which is scheduled for 06.03.2026, and it is not disputed that the air tickets of the petitioner and his wife have already been booked, their departure is being fixed for 03.03.2026 and return of the petitioner is scheduled for 01.04.2026 as is evident from Annexure P-1. The purpose for which the leave has been sought is neither extraneous nor untenable but is a legitimate and bona fide familial obligation, integral to the petitioner’s right to lead a meaningful life with dignity, which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The recommendations of the DS Division, PSPCL, Mansa and the Superintending Engineer, Bathinda have also not been denied.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has already given c