IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

248 (1) CWP-2510-2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh ....Petitioner Versus The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents (2) CWP-2512-2023 Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh ....Petitioner Versus The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents (3) CWP-2513-2023 Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh ....Petitioner Versus The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Ms. Sukhmani Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. G.S.Bal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Avtar Singh, Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 5 (in CWPs No.2510 and 2512 of 2023).

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent – UOI.

Mr. Harkirat Singh Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.2 (in CWP-2513-2023).

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. The present three petitions, the details of which are mentioned in the heading, are being disposed of through a common order as common question of law is involved in all the cases.

2. The present petitions are filed challenging the order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) by which, the Original Applications filed by the respondents (herein) have been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to consider the case of the respondents for grant of study leave under the provisions of Study Leave Rules 1972 and relieve them so that they can pursue their higher studies.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argues that as a matter of fact, keeping in view the interim order passed by the Tribunal, the respondents have already undergone the course they opted for and have also joined back the service. Hence, the only grievance of the petitioners which remains as of now is qua the finding given in paragraph 22 of the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) that while granting the no objection certificate so as to apply for study leave no restrictions can be put by the petitioner and the candidate has absolutely unfettered power to claim undergoing the course under study leave Rules, is causing prejudice to the institute as, there are number of employees, who by placing reliance upon such finding, are claiming the benefit of study leave, leaving the institution in no position to decline the same, as the same would affect the working of the instutition.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that once the respondents have already undergone the study qua the course they opted for and have joined back the institute, they have no issue in case, the finding recorded in paragraph 22 by the Tribunal is clarified in a manner required.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. The question which has come before this Court for determination in the present case is that whether study leave claimed by the employees working in an institute is a matter of right and that too without there being any right with the employer to reject the same.

7. It may be noticed that the benefit of study leave while being appointed in an institute can only granted for the purpose that the employee concerned gets the chance to enhance his/her academic qualification and acquires a better knowledge qua the work that is to be performed in the institution by such employees in course of their employment, which will ultimately help the institution in better functioning while the employee perform his/her duty after acquiring such academic qualification after grant of benefit of said study le