Permanent government servants are not required to execute a bond for extraordinary leave under CCS (Leave) Rules when the leave is for personal study, as per Rule 32.

Headnote:(A) CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 - Rule 32 - Extraordinary Leave - Applicant, a permanent government servant, sought extraordinary leave for higher studies without pay, challenging the requirement to execute a bond under Rule 32 (3)(a) applicable to temporary employees - Court found that the applicant is entitled to extraordinary leave under Rule 32 (1)(b) without the bond requirement, as the leave is for personal study and not in public interest - Impugned orders quashed. (Paras 8, 12, 16)

(B) Government Employment - Rights of Permanent Employees - The court emphasized that permanent employees are not subject to the same bond requirements as temporary employees under the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, particularly when applying for extraordinary leave for personal study. (Paras 12, 16)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a permanent Assistant Medical Officer, applied for extraordinary leave to pursue higher education after securing a rank in NEET 2021. The respondents insisted on a bond under Rule 32 (3)(a), which the applicant contested, arguing it was not applicable to her status as a permanent employee. (Paras 2.1, 2.2, 2.4)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the applicant is entitled to extraordinary leave without the bond requirement, as the leave sought was for personal study and not in public interest, quashing the impugned orders. (Paras 16)

Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant was required to execute a bond for extraordinary leave as a permanent government servant. (Paras 8, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Rule 32 (2) does not apply to permanent employees, and the bond requirement under Rule 32 (3)(a) is not applicable in this case, as the leave sought was for personal study. (Paras 12, 16)

Result: OA allowed; impugned orders quashed.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A))

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-

“to set aside to set aside the impugned order of the First Respondent bearing No 256/RYS/PER/M dated 04.05.2022 and order of the Second Respondent bearing No.01800A/Hosp/Office/2022 dated 06.05.2022 with consequential directions to the Respondents not insisting the Applicant to execute a Bond under Rule 32 (2) (e) and 32 (3) (a) of CCS Leave Rules for five years which are applicable for temporary Government servants and granting her extraordinary leave without pay in terms of Rule 32 (1) (b) of CCS Leave Rules and be pleased to pass such further or other orders in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

2. The facts of the case as submitted by the Applicant, are as follows, in brief:-

2.1. The Applicant is working as the Assistant Medical Officer, OFH/HVF, Avadi, Chennai-600054 and has put in continuous service of three years as a "permanent employee" of the Respondents Department. She appeared for 'NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY CUM ENTRANCE TEST' PG 2021 (NEET 21) and secured 2894th rank. She had applied for grant of 'Extraordinary Leave on 10.02.2022 for three years from 17.02.2022 to 16.02.2025 as applicable in terms of Rule 32 of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 for three years to pursue higher education in M.S. (General Surgery). The Applicant is eligible for extraordinary leave without pay under Rule 32 (1) (b) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 . Necessary permission was accorded by the First Respondent herein allowing the Applicant herein to appear for NEET 21 vide her letter dated 27.04.2021.

2.2. The Applicant submitted that on being accorded necessary permission by the first respondent to appear for the NEET-21, the respondents were imposing certain conditions contrary to the scope of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 . The Applicant was willing to apply for grant of Extraordinary Leave even by surrendering the pay and allowances during the study period. The Applicant had informed the Department in relation to her participation in counselling and subsequent admission process vide her letter dated 22.10.2021. Thereby, there is no suppression of facts on the side of the Applicant. She had scrupulously followed the due process of law in relation of code of conduct enjoined upon the Government servants in seeking prior permission as well as informing the Department well in advance about her appearing for NEET-21 Examination as well as seeking permission to grant extraordinary leave for three years for pursuing M. S. (General Surgery) and as such, there is no violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

2.3. The Applicant was informed by the First Respondent vide his Proceedings bearing No 256/RYS/H&S/Med dated 25.07.2022 to the effect that strict disciplinary action would be initiated for joining the PG Course without taking permission to participate in counselling and also leaving the place of duty for joining the said Course in the Govt. Medical College without prior approval of leave thereby breaching the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Applicant had already applied in advance for extraordinary leave for 3 years from 17.02.2022 to 16.02.2025 vide her letter dated 10.02.2022 duly appending the leave application in the prescribed form followed vide letter dated 01.03.2021 addressed to the Secretary (A/M Sec), Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata seeking permission for appearing in NEET 21 Examination slated for 18.04.2022.

2.4. The Applicant submits that Rule 32 (2)(d) and Rule 32 (3) (a) of CCS Rules for grant of EOLWP is applicable to Government servants who are not in permanent employ or quasi permanent employee. The Applicant being a permanent employee, Rule 32 (1) (b) is applicable. Further, it is sine-quo- non to place on record that Rule 51(2) of CCS Rules provides for five year period for study leave allowing full salary. According to the Applicant, she is a permanent Government servant having been confirmed vide Orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3828

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALMS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, J, MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, ADr Raia Yusuf Stalin – AppellantVersusM/o Defence – RespondentO.A./688/2022

Permanent government servants are not required to execute a bond for extraordinary leave under CCS (Leave) Rules when the leave is for personal study, as per Rule 32.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, J, MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, A
Dr Raia Yusuf Stalin – Appellant
Versus
M/o Defence – Respondent
O.A./688/2022