Allowed

Rajkumar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Jan 2023CW/5397/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Benches allowed this writ petition, holding that the impugned order rejecting study leave was contrary to Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, as the course was in the interest of the department service.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.12.2016 set aside. Petitioner allowed study leave status and consequential reliefs. Compliance within two months.

Rajkumar Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/000402]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5397/2017

¶4

Rajkumar Son Of Kailash Chandra age about 30 years, resident of V.P Sahad, Tehsil Buhana District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Director, Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Swasthay Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶9

Additional Director Administration Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Swasthay Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶10

Joint Director Administration Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Swasthay Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶11

Block Chief Medical Officer, Buhana, Jhunjhunu.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhupendra Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Tyagi

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶15

Order

¶16

24/01/2023

¶17

Instant petition has been filed with the following

¶18

prayer:

¶19

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition, call for the entire record of the respondents relating to the present matter and after examining the same, the Humble Court by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction or in the nature thereof may further be pleased:-

(2 of 6)

[2023/RJJP/000402]

[CW-5397/2017]

(I) to quash the action of the respondents by which the Rejection the study leave by the order dated 22.12.2016 by holding the same as bad in the law. ii) to further hold the petitioner entitled to be treated as the study leave during the training period of GNM course for the two year from 11.11.2014 to 10.11.2016 which was rejected the study leave as an in-service candidate and direct the respondents to grant salary and allowances to the petitioner as well as all other consequential benefits treating the petitioner.

¶24

(iii) as the study leave period may also be treated on deputation and further make arrears of the same with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

¶25

(iv) any other order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner with costs;”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the case Himmat Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. ( S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17843/2015), by observing as under:

¶27

“This Court deems it proper to quote Rule 112 of the Rajathan Service Rules, 1951 as under:-

¶28

“112. Condition for grant of Study leave. — (I)Study leave shall be granted to enable a Government servant: — (i)to pursue a course of study or investigation of a scientific or technical nature either in India or outside India provided that it is certified by the authority competent to sanction that the grant of study leave will be in the interest of the working of the department or the service to which the Government servant belongs. The authority competent to grant study leave shall ensure that it is not granted to a Government servant with such frequency work

(3 of 6)

[2023/RJJP/000402]

[CW-5397/2017]

or to cause cadre difficulties owing to his as to remove him from contact with his regular absence on leave. A period of 12 months at one time should ordinarily be regarded as a suitable maximum and should not be exceeded save for exceptional reasons.

¶33

(ii)The total period of study leave during the entire period of service of a Government servant shall not be more than 24 months. It may betaken in one spell or more than one spell. Study leave may be combined with other kinds of leave, but in no case shall the grant of this leave in combination with leave, other than extra-ordinary leave, involve a total absence of more than twenty-eight months from the regular duties of the Government servant.

¶34

(2) Study Leave is extra leave on half pay and leave salary during such leave shall be regulated in accordance with rule 97(2). (Emphasis supplied.)

¶35

This Court on bare perusal of the Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 finds that the study leave is granted to Government servant to enable him to pursue the course of study and grant of study leave should be in the interest of working of the Department or the service to which Government Servant belongs.

¶36

This Court finds that if the study leave is in the interest of the working of the Department, then it cannot be said that the person, who is in Class-IV cadre and acquires qualification of GNM, the same would not be in the interest of working of the Department.

¶37

The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 also provides a condition that if the Government Servant wants study leave, it should be in the interest of the service to which Government servant belongs, this Court finds that if the Rule making authority has clearly demarcated

(4 of 6)

[2023/RJJP/000402]

[CW-5397/2017]

two situations by giving benefit of study leave in the interest of the working of the Department as well as in the interest of service to which Government servant belongs plain and purposeful interpretation has to be made of such Rule.

¶42

The rule making authority has kept in mind that it is the working of the Department, which is benefited by virtue of acquiring higher qualification by the employee and as such the employee belonging to cadre of Class-IV cannot be presumed, to be not acquiring such course of study, which would ultimately not be in the interest of working of the Department.

¶43

This Court had occasion to consider the similar issue in the case of Dr. Sheikh Mohmmad Afzal (supra) and the relevant portion of the order is quoted hereunder:-

¶44

“The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the candidate, if appointed in a particular stream, later on joins in Postgraduation in other stream and as such, the change of stream cannot be in benefit of the State, as when such candidate reverts back, he is appointed on the same post, this Court finds that if the Senior Demonstrator or Assistant Professor acquires higher education/Postgraduation in Medical Science, his/her study or knowledge cannot go waste and the same can always be used by the Government, considering the higher education acquired by such candidate.”

¶45

The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the benefit, which was granted to the other candidates has been withdrawn or wrong orders if has been passed in past will not give right to the petitioners to claim benefit of study leave, this Court finds that the Rule making Authority once has provided in Rule112 of the Rajasthan

(5 of 6)

[2023/RJJP/000402]

[CW-5397/2017]

Service Rules, 1951 making a person entitled for grant of study leave in the interest of the working of the Department, such entitlement cannot be denied to the Government Servant.

¶50

This Court accordingly finds that the order dated 25.08.2015, has not been passed by the respondents in legal and proper manner and accordingly, the same is set aside. The petitioners are held entitled for grant of study leave and they will also be entitled for the consequential reliefs, which flow from granting of study leave. The compliance of this order will be made within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶51

The present writ petition stands allowed, accordingly.”

¶52

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶53

It is not disputed that the petitioner was duly permitted to undergo training course of GNM Session 20142015 by the respondent – department vide order dated 05.11.2016 and after getting permission from the department, the petitioner has underwent the other course of GNM. However, by the impugned order study leave for the aforesaid training period has been refused by the respondents vide order dated 22.12.2016.

¶54

The controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Himmat Singh (supra).

(6 of 6)

[2023/RJJP/000402]

[CW-5397/2017]

Accordingly, impugned order 22.12.2016 passed by the respondents is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled for grant of study leave and he will also be entitled for all consequential reliefs which flow from granting of study leave.

¶59

Compliance of this order will be made by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶60

The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

¶61

Stay application and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶62

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶63

KuD/50

Rajkumar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shreeram Bansiwal S/O Girdhari Lal Vs Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (Rtdc)

Seema Gupta Vs University of Rajasthan

Lt. Col. Udai Singh Panwar S/O Dhonkal Singh Panwar Vs Union of India

Mali Ram Vs State Home Department Ors.

Rohit Sharma S/O Shri Mohan Lal Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Hemraj S/O Shri Bhagwana Ram Vs State of Rajasthan