LPA No.1464 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No.1464 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.02.2010 Suresh Kumar Yadav ....Appellant. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. Gourav Goel, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dated 23.10.2009, denying the benefit of Study Allowance to the appellant – petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, who was an employee of Civil Services in the State of Haryana was granted study leave from 29.7.2002 to 10.6.2003 for doing International Tax Program 2003-04 at Harvard Law College, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA. While sanctioning study leave for the aforesaid period, a condition was imposed upon the appellant – petitioner that he would furnish an undertaking that he will not claim Study Leave Allowance. Accordingly, the appellant – petitioner had furnished the said undertaking and subsequently, claimed LPA No.1464 of 2009 2 Study Leave Allowance on the ground that the aforesaid undertaking was a forced one. The petitioner had further averred that once study leave is granted, the respondents cannot refuse to pay him Study Leave Allowance as per the provisions of Rule 8 of the Study Leave Rules, 1963. However, the aforesaid claim of the appellant – petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 2.6.2009 (Annexure P-13). 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 2.6.2009, the appellant – petitioner had challenged the same by filing writ petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.10.2009. The present appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by learned Single Judge. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma and others, AIR 1998 SC 2909, and stated that in the aforementioned case, inspite of an undertaking having been given by the respondent not to claim benefits of promotion, his claim for grant of the said benefits was allowed on the ground that denial of benefits on the basis of undertaking was contrary to law and against public policy. 6. The decision rendered in Hari Om Sharma's case (supra) is not applicable to the present case as the facts of the present case are totally different. In the present case, appellant – petitioner had furnished undertaking to go on study leave and his undertaking was genuine and could not be proved to be out of any fraud, misrepresentation or coercion. Had there been no undertaking, the authorities would not have sanctioned study LPA No.1464 of 2009 3 leave. It is well settled that the authorities may or may not sanction study leave. In view of undertaking furnished by the appellant – petitioner, study leave was sanctioned, presuming that there would be no financial burden on the department while the appellant would be on study leave. Having availed study leave on the basis of a clear cut undertaking, now the appellant cannot be permitted to claim Study Leave Allowance saying Study Leave Allowance is automatic when study leave is granted. 8. Ordinarily, on the grant of study leave, Study Leave Allowance is automatic, but in the present case, the appellant – petitioner himself with open eyes had foregone his claim for Study Leave Allowance and furnished an undertaking before sanction of study leave. Hence, he was rightly denied Study Leave Allowance for the period in question. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 11.02.2010 sk.