Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, V. G. Arun, JJ
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, – Appellant
Versus
DR. NAVYA PRADEEP, – Respondent
OP (CAT)/140/2019
Leave - Employees State Insurance Corporation - CCS (Leave) Rules - The court examined the application of Rule 50 and Rule 7(1) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, interpreting eligibility criteria for study leave and the authority's discretion in granting or denying such leave, ultimately ruling in favor of the applicants.
Fact of the Case:
Original petitions were filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation opposing a Tribunal order that granted study leave to medical officers for their postgraduate studies, asserting that leave cannot be claimed as a right.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing that the applicants had a legitimate expectation of study leave based on the sponsorship certificates provided by the Corporation.
Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to study leave under the CCS (Leave) Rules despite the Corporation's contention that they could only apply for extraordinary leave.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the Corporation could not unilaterally alter the nature of leave applied for by the applicants from study leave to extraordinary leave without their request.
Final Decision: The original petitions were dismissed, affirming the applicants' right to study leave.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court examined the application of rules governing study leave under the CCS (Leave) Rules, specifically Rules 7 and 50, and clarified that eligible employees have a legitimate expectation of study leave if they meet the criteria, and this entitlement cannot be arbitrarily denied once established (!) (!) .
The facts of the case involve medical officers who obtained sponsorship certificates and applied for study leave to pursue postgraduate studies. The employees joined their courses based on the belief that they would be granted study leave, which was supported by the sponsorship certificates indicating that their emoluments would be paid by the sponsor during the training period (!) (!) .
The employer, Employees State Insurance Corporation, initially issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the study leave but later refused to grant study leave, directing employees to apply for extraordinary leave instead. The Corporation argued that leave cannot be claimed as a right and that their discretion was limited by policy decisions, including a cap of 4% of medical officers per hospital eligible for study leave (!) (!) .
The court found that the employees' application for study leave was made in good faith, and the sponsorship certificates created a legitimate expectation that they would be granted such leave. The direction to apply for extraordinary leave after their studies had commenced was viewed as an unfair unilateral change, and thus, the authority could not have altered the nature of the leave without the employees' request (!) .
The court emphasized that the policy limiting study leave to a certain percentage of employees was a policy decision, but it was improperly implemented in this case because the employees had already obtained sponsorship certificates and joined their courses based on the understanding that they would be granted study leave. Therefore, the policy could not be used to deny their entitlement in this context (!) .
The court also clarified that the employees had fulfilled the conditions for study leave under Rule 50, including service requirements, and that the nature of the leave—whether study leave or extraordinary leave—does not change the employees' right to such leave once eligibility is established (!) (!) .
The decision highlighted that the employees' undertaking to bear expenses personally did not negate their right to study leave or leave salary, which are separate considerations from the financial responsibilities undertaken by the employees (!) .
The court dismissed the employer’s contention that the employees' applications for extraordinary leave were requests to alter their original application for study leave, affirming that the employees' applications were made under the original entitlement and not as a request for change (!) .
In conclusion, the court upheld the employees' right to study leave, emphasizing that once eligibility is met and the employee has a legitimate expectation based on sponsorship, the employer cannot arbitrarily deny the leave or alter its nature. The order of the tribunal was maintained, and the original petitions were dismissed (!) .
The judgment also notes that the policy decision to limit study leave to a certain percentage was based on sound reasoning but was improperly implemented in this case since the employees had already obtained sponsorship certificates and joined their courses under the belief that they would receive study leave (!) .
These points collectively summarize the court's reasoning, the facts, and the legal principles involved in this case.
JUDGMENT
Arun, J.
These original petitions are filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation and its officials, aggrieved by the common order issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, allowing the original applications filed by the respondents herein. By the impugned order, the Tribunal declared the applicants to be entitled for study leave for the period from 1.5.2018 to 30.4.2021 with consequential benefits under Rule 50 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 [CCS (Leave) Rules] and set aside the orders by which the ESI Corporation had granted only extraordinary leave to the applicants. The brief facts which led up to the impugned order are narrated hereunder, with the parties and exhibits referred to as in the original applications:
2. O.P(CAT).No.117 of 2019 arises out of O.A.No.533 of 2018, O.P(CAT).No.133 of 2019 is from O.A.No.598 of 2018 and O.P(CAT).No.140 of 2019 is from O.A.No.180 of 2018. All the applicants are working as Insurance Medical Officers in the Hospitals under the ESI Corporation. The applicants in O.P(CAT).No.117 of 2019 are working at the ESIC Model and Super Speciality Hospital, Asramam, Kollam and the applicants in O.A.Nos.598 and 626 of 2018 at the ESIC Hospital, Udyogamandal, Ernakulam. The applicants have completed their probation and have five years of service and thereby have the requisite eligibility to apply for study leave, for pursuing higher studies, as prescribed under Rule 50(5)(i) of the CCS (Leave) Rules.
3. Desirous of pursuing their post graduation (M.D), the applicants obtained No Objection Certificate from the ESI Corporation and appeared for the NEET Examination, 2018. On being ranked in the NEET Examination, the applicants applied for sponsorship certificate from the ESI Corporation, in order to pursue their post graduate course at the Armed Forces Medical College (AFMC). The students aspiring for admission to post graduate courses in the AFMC are classified into different priority categories. The applicants fall under priority III, which is meant for candidates entitled to be sponsored by the para-military organisations or by any other Government of India organisation. The applicants were issued with sponsorship certificates and on the strength of the sponsorship certificates and their score in the NEET Examination, the applicants attended the counselling conducted by the AFMC and secured admissions for MD in different disciplines. Thereafter, the applicants submitted request for study leave for a period of three years. The Corporation having delayed the grant of leave, applicants joined the course and the classes commenced from 1.5.2018 onwards. To the surprise and dismay of the applicants, the Corporation refused to grant them study leave and instead directed to apply for extraordinary leave, if they intended to pursue their studies. By that time, the applicants had executed a bond with the AFMC, undertaking to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs towards damages, in the event of the applicants discontinuing their course. In such situation, the applicants were left with no alternative other than to apply for extraordinary leave.
4. It was contended by the ESI Corporation that NOC to appear in the selection process was issued on the request of the applicants with the pre-condition that in the event of selection for the PG course, separate application for grant of study leave should be submitted and that such application will be considered on merits as per the policy on study leave, applicable at the time of consideration. It is the further case of the Corporation that the applicants themselves having requested for grant of extraordinary leave and having been granted such leave, cannot later turn around and challenge the same. It was submitted that the decision to limit study leave to not more than 4% medical officers in a Hospital was approved by the Standing Committee of the Corporation in its 172nd meeting held on 9.6.2006. Reliance was also placed on the undertak
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
