GAHC010257872025 2025:GAU-AS:16279

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/6729/2025

1.THE UNION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA,

MINISTRY OF RAILWAY, RAILWAY BOARD,

NEW DELHI 110001

2: THE GENERAL MANAGER

NF RAIILWAY, MALIGAON GUWAHATI 11

3: THE GENERAL MANAGER (P)

NF RAIILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI 11

4: THE DEPUTY CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER/ GAZETTE

NF RAIILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI 11

5: THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF MEDICAL DIRECTOR

NF RAIILWAY HEAD QUARTER MALIGAON GUWAHATI 1

VERSUS

RAJENDRA KUMAR VARMA

SO PREM KUMAR VARMA,

RO ROOM NO 8, OFFICERS REST HOUSE,

GUWAHATI RAILWAY STATION, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI 1

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Roy, Central Government Counsel.

: Mr. S. Borthakur, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H.K. Das, Advocate.

: Mr. N.K. Sarma, Advocate.

B E F O R E –

–

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

28.11.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Central Government Counsel for the Railways/petitioners and Mr. H.K. Das, learned Advocate for the sole respondent.

2. The respondent is serving the Railways as a Medical Officer. He had earlier availed of 3(three) years’ Study Leave for pursuing his Post Graduate Course, viz. Doctor of Medicine (in short, “MD”) in Medicine. Later, he again required leave for 3(three) years for pursing the course of Doctorate of Medicine (in short, “DM”), Neurology, which is a super speciality course. The respondent also passed the National Eligibility- cum-Entrance Test-Super Speciality (in short, “NEET”) examination and secured his admission in the medical college for pursuing such course. However, his Study leave was rejected without assigning any reason by the competent authority.

3. The respondent, thereafter, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short, “Tribunal”), Guwahati Bench, by filing Original Application No.288/2025. The Tribunal, vide order dated 28.10.2025, on going through the Study Lave Rules and the Railway Services (Liberalised Leave) Rules, 1949, directed the Railways/petitioners to grant leave to the respondent for 3(three) years to pursue his course.

4. The Railways/petitioners have challenged the afore-noted judgment of the Tribunal on various grounds, viz., that the respondent had earlier availed of a leave of 3(three) years for pursuing higher studies in MD (Medicine) while he was serving in the North-Central Railways. The study leave does not prescribe for any second leave in the life of an employee, be he a doctor serving in the Railway Medical Service. The other reason for denying the leave, according to the petitioners, is that the respondent has been facing a major penalty departmental proceeding (vigilance case), which is still pending. The last of the reasons urged before the Tribunal was that the Policy of the Railway Board is that no contract doctor could be engaged in place of a doctor going on a long study leave/EOL and in the assessment of the employers/petitioners, the N.F. Railway would require the presence of the respondent as a Medical Officer.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the application made by the respondent for seeking leave, he had declared that he had never availed of Study leave in the past.

Prima facie, this statement is incorrect.

Admittedly, the respondent had taken Study leave for pursuing his MD Course.

7. After having said that, we also reckon that perhaps the respondent would have meant that he had never applied for leave for pursuing DM Course, as a serving doctor in the Railways would always know that the records are available with the employer and such false statement, if intended, could not have passed unnoticed.

Nonetheless, we have examined the Study Leave Rules and the Railway Services (Liberalised Leave) Rules, 1949.

8. A bare reading of the Study Leave Rules makes it clear that in respect of Railway Medical Service Officer, Study Leave may be granted for 36(thirty-six)