Disposed¶62

Vikram Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Study leave – Grant thereof is not a matter of right

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Jul 2024CWP/8031/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No. 8031 of 2023, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, decided 05.07.2024; study leave for 3-year LLB Course denied to Police Head Constable; Rule 50(5)(ii) FR & SR Leave Rules – superannuation-within-three-years condition; CCS (Conduct) Rules 1972; H.P. Government instructions dated 07.08.2010 on NOC and extra ordinary leave undertaking; plea of discrimination/parity with similarly situated officials; earlier rejection dated 29.06.2017 attained finality; adjudication held academic; writ petition closed; no monetary relief.

What did the court decide?

The earlier rejection of 2017 (Annexure P-6) attained finality, as it was not challenged until the 2022 writ petition, which was disposed of without adjudication on merits. ¶26

Vikram Singh Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 22.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) rejecting the petitioner's prayer for grant of study leave is liable to be quashed. +3 more

¶13

Court's answer

Relief cannot be granted contrary to Rule 50(5)(ii) of the FR & SR Leave Rules: the petitioner, being more than 53 years old and seeking a 3-year LLB course, would not have more than 3 years of service left after the expected date of return; consequently, adjudication of the issues raised is only academic and the petition is closed.

¶62

Ratio / Principle

The earlier rejection of 2017 (Annexure P-6) attained finality, as it was not challenged until the 2022 writ petition, which was disposed of without adjudication on merits.

¶26

Key takeaways

Grant of study leave is not a matter of right, and the Court found no illegality in the Government communication dated 07.08.2010; the prayer to quash it was declined.ratio¶47
The reference in the rejection order to Rule 50(5)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1972 appears to be a reference to Rule 50 of the FR & SR Leave Rules.obiter¶50
The intent of grant of study leave is to enhance the skill of an employee by permitting higher study having a direct and close connection with the sphere of his duty.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Study leave – Grant thereof is not a matter of right – Petitioner, a Police Head Constable over 53 years of age, sought study leave to undergo a 3-year LLB Course; prayer rejected. Held: under Rule 50(5)(ii) of the FR & SR Leave Rules, study leave cannot be granted to a Government servant who is due to reach the age of superannuation within three years of the date he is expected to return to duty after expiry of the leave; the petitioner would have less than three years of service left after completing the course, so relief could not be granted in violation of the Rule. The reference in the rejection order to Rule 50(5)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1972 was treated as a reference to Rule 50 of the FR & SR Leave Rules. The H.P. Government instructions dated 07.08.2010 (NOC for higher studies conditional on an undertaking to pursue studies on extra ordinary leave) were held not to suffer from any illegality. The earlier rejection of 2017 had attained finality as it was not challenged until 2022. Parity/discrimination and age-relaxation pleas were rendered purely academic; the writ petition was closed.

¶1

2024:HHC:5891

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

¶3

SHIMLA

¶4

CWP No. 8031 of 2023 Decided on 05^th July, 2024 Vikram Singh

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Coram

¶10

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes

¶11

For the petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶12

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶13

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of Annexure P-1, dated 22.09.2023, in terms whereof, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of study leave has been rejected. He has further sought a direction to

¶14

the respondents to grant him study leave to undergo LLB Course on the analogy of other officials, who were granted similar leave. Further prayer is to direct the respondents to give him age relaxation, if required to grant study leave, as well as

¶15

¶16

for the quashing of instructions of the H.P. Government dated 07.08.2010.

¶17

The case of the petitioner is that he is serving in the

¶18

Police Department and at the time of filing of the writ petition, he was serving as a Head Constable. He applied for admission in LLB entrance examination in the year 2006 from Himachal Pradesh University. This was pursuant to no objection certificate issued in his favour by the Department. The petitioner successfully cleared the test and applied to the respondents for grant of study leave. However, the Department did not grant him study leave. Petitioner filed original application No.5098 of 2016, before erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, feeling aggrieved by the acts of omission of the Department. The petition was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 25.04.2017, in terms of Annexure P-5, directing the respondents to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner within four weeks. The representation was rejected by the Authority vide Annexure P-6, dated 29.06.2017.

¶19

Feeling aggrieved by the fact that on one hand study leave was denied to the petitioner, whereas, the same was granted to

¶20

¶21

similarly situated persons, the petitioner filed CWP No.7095 of 2022, before this Court. This writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-8) by reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for the grant of study leave with further direction to the respondents to decide the same expeditiously after adhering to the principles of natural justice. Vide Annexure P-9, dated 28.08.2023, the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected, hence this writ petition.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

¶23

The case of the petitioner for the grant of study leave has been rejected vide impugned order dated 22.09.2023, on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible under CCS (Conduct) Rule 1972, Rule 50(5)(ii), as there was a criminal case, pending against him and he was in ODI list. It is relevant to refer to the earlier rejection order by the Authority, in terms of the direction passed by the Tribunal, which order is appended with the petition as Annexure P-6. The case of the petitioner was rejected for the grant of study leave, in terms of

¶24

¶25

Annexure P-6, order dated 28.06.2017, on the ground that the case of the applicant was considered by the Committee and the applicant was directed to furnish a specific undertaking to pursue the LLB Course by taking extra ordinary leave, but, as he was not interested by taking extra ordinary leave to pursue LLB Course, therefore, his application was being rejected.

¶26

It is relevant to mention that this rejection of the application of the petitioner was not challenged by him forthwith, but, it was only in the year 2022, that a writ petition was filed by him, which was also closed by this Court without adjudication on merit, but with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation. Meaning thereby, that the earlier order of rejection of the prayer of the petitioner by the Authority, in fact, has attained finality.

¶27

Be that as it may, the petitioner has alleged discrimination for the purpose of considering his case for the grant of study leave as compared to other incumbents. Before proceeding further, this Court would like to dwell upon the prayer of the petitioner to quash communication dated 07.08.2010, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh,

¶28

¶29

which though is not appended with the petition, but is appended with the reply filed by the respondents-State. This

¶30

communication reads as under:-

¶31

“From

¶32

To The Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

¶33

¶34

The Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh Shimla-2.

¶35

Dated Shimda-171002, the 7th August, 2010 Subject:

¶36

Sir,

¶37

Regarding sanction of study leave for 3 years LL.B. Course from H.P. University, Shima.

¶38

I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to say that granting of study leave to the Officers/Officials of the Police Department, the Government has taken the following decision:-

¶39

1. That all cases of officials requesting for NOC to pursue inger-stones will be allowed by the concerned Head of office after obtaining a specific undertaking from the official that he/she will pursue higher studies by taking extra ordinary leave and will not ask for study leave for the purpose, and

¶40

2. Wherever the study leave is intended to be availed, the case for grant of NOC will be considered and disposed of at the same

¶41

¶42

level which is Cendetent to grant study leave.

¶43

You are requested to issue necessary instructions in this regard. The instructions so issued shall have the prospective effect.

¶44

Yours faithfully,

¶45

s/d Under Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.”

¶46

As I have already referred to hereinabove in the

¶47

light of this communication, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Authority in the year 2017. The order passed by the Authority was not assailed by the petitioner, till he filed a writ petition in the year 2022, which was disposed of by this Court without adjudication on merit. Therefore, as the order passed by the Authority in the year 2017, has attained finality and further as grant of study leave otherwise also is not a matter of right, this Court does not finds any illegality in communication dated 07.08.2010, so as to quash the same.

¶48

Now, this Court will deal with the prayer of the petitioner for issuance of mandamus to the Department to grant him study leave. As per Annexure P-1, dated 22.09.2023, the

¶49

¶50

prayer of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that as there was an FIR registered against him and as he was facing a criminal case, therefore, he was not eligible for the grant of study leave. This Court was not able to lay its hand upon Rule 50(5) (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1972, but, it appears that reference therein is to FR & SR Leave Rule, Rule 50.

¶51

Chapter 6 of the FR & SR Leave Rules, deals with the study leave. Rule 50 thereof provides the conditions for grant of study leave. Rule 50(5) of the same reads as under:-

¶52

50(5)“Study leave may be granted to a Government servant— (i) who has satisfactorily completed period of probation and has rendered not less than five years' regular continuous service including the period of probation under the Government;

¶53

(ii) who is not due to reach the age of superannuation from the Government service within [three years (five years in the case of Central Health Service Officer who has been granted thirty six months study leave under subrule (2) of Rule 51) from] the date on which he is expected to return to duty after the expiry of the leave; and

¶54

(iii)who executes a Bond as laid down in Rule 53 (4) undertaking to serve the Government for a period of [three years (five years in the case of Central Health Service Officer who has been granted thirty-six months' study leave under subrule (2) of Rule 51)] after the expiry of the leave.”

¶55

¶56

In terms of these Rules, study leave may be granted to a Government servant, inter alia , who is not due to reach the age of superannuation from the Government service within 3 years from the date, on which he is expected to return to duty after the expiry of the leave.

¶57

In the present case, the petitioner is more than 53 years old and he is seeking study leave to undergo a 3 years LLB Course.

¶58

The intent of the grant of study leave is to enhance the skill of an employee by permitting him to undergo such higher study as has a direct and close connection with the sphere of his duty.

¶59

In case, the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of study leave is allowed by the Court by setting aside the impugned order, then, also he would be completing his law, when he would be more than 56 old, meaning thereby that he shall not be having more than 3 years of service at his disposal from the date, on which, he is expecting to return to duty after the expiry of the leave.

¶60

¶61

This Court otherwise also cannot grant any relief to the petitioner in violation of the provisions of Rule 50 of the FR & SR Leave Rule.

¶62

Therefore, as the relief being prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted to him in the light of the conditions which are contained in Rule 50(5) (ii) of the FR & SR Leave Rule, this Court is of the considered view that adjudication on the issues raised by the petitioner now is only academic in nature. Therefore, as with the passage of time, the petition has lost its efficacy, the same is accordingly closed.

¶63

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶64

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶65

July 05, 2024 (Vinod)

Vikram Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagtamba Devi (Deceased through LRs Chander Pal) and Others Vs Desh Raj

Ram Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Basant Ram Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others

Prem Chand Vs State of Hp

Anupama Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors.