IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR, J.
Dr. Bhawana – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Ayush Lko. And Others – Respondents
Writ A. No. 2075 Of 2024
Decided On : 19-03-2024
STUDY LEAVE - GOVERNMENT SERVANT - Rule 146 A (2), Rule 146 A (3) - Chapter XI A of Financial Hand Book
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Medical Officer, applied for study leave to pursue a P.G. Course, which was rejected by the respondent no. 2 based on Rule 146 A (2) as the petitioner had less than five years of service and was on probation for two years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the restriction of five years of completed service applied to the initial study leave as well as extra study leave, and as the petitioner had only completed six months of service and was still on probation, the rejection of the application was justified.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to study leave despite having less than five years of service and being on probation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 146 A (2) and Rule 146 A (3) of Chapter XI A of the Financial Hand Book, emphasizing that the restriction of five years of completed service applied to both initial and extra study leave.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found it devoid of merit.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Present petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2-Director Ayurvedic Services, U.P., Lucknow whereby the application for grant of study leave for a period of 12 months for pursuing P.G. Course has been rejected and with a further prayer to direct the respondents to grant the petitioner study leave of 12 months in accordance with the provisions laid down in Chapter XI A of the Financial Hand Book.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was selected and appointed vide appointment letter dated 01.09.2023 on the post of Medical Officer, Community Health Center (Ayurvedic and Unani), Ayush Department, Govt of U.P..
4. It is further submitted that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, she was in the midst of her P.G. Course and to complete the same, she had moved an application for grant of study leave as provided under Part III of Financial Hand Book Volume II Part II to III.
5. The said application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent no. 2 by placing reliance on Rule 146 A (2) on the ground that the petitioner has less than five years of service and as the petitioner is on probation for a period of two years from the date of her joining.
6. It is further contended that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent no. 2 by wrongly placing reliance on the provision which is not applicable as far as it is related to the grant of extra leave. The case of the petitioner is covered under Rule 146 A (3) which deals with study leave and the said provision does not provide any such restriction that a Government Servant of less than five years of services is not entitled for the study leave.
7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner since the date of appointment/joining is on two years probation period during which the leave cannot be granted and there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the position which emerges out in the present case is that under Part III, Chapter XI A comes and these are ancillary Rules made by the Governor while exercising its power under Rule 84 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules. For convenience Rule 84 is quoted hereinbelow:-
9. Chapter XI A of Part III of the Financial Hand Book deals with study leave. The Rule 146 A (2) provides that study leave should not be ordinarily granted to a Government Servant of less than five years of service. For convenience, the same is quoted hereinbelow:-
10. Rule 146 A (3) provides the period of leave which could be granted and for convenience, the same is quoted hereinbelow:-
The restriction of five years of completed service applies to both initial and extra study leave, as per Rule 146 A (2) and Rule 146 A (3) of Chapter XI A of the Financial Hand Book.
The court established that probationers may be granted study leave under extraordinary circumstances, despite general restrictions, and that differential treatment of similarly situated individuals i....
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 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.
'Dies Non' order treating study leave period harshly affects service rights and violates natural justice without hearing; medical officer's higher studies period directed as study leave under 1979 Ru....
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.