CWP No.2775 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.2775 of 2008 Date of decision: December 5, 2008 Jagraj Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab for the respondents. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has sought quashing of order, Annexure P-3 whereby his claim for grant of extraordinary leave without pay under Rule 8.137 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I Part-I (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), has been rejected. The petitioner, who is a lecturer in Government Senior Secondary School, Virk Kalan, District Bathinda, applied for two years extraordinary leave without pay on 26th October, 2007. However, application of the petitioner was rejected keeping in view the interest of the students. According to the petitioner, similarly placed employees have been granted the benefit of Rule 8.137 of the Rules and thus granted extraordinary leave. He has placed on record Annexure P-4 in support of his claim. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and CWP No.2775 of 2008 2 examined the Rules governing grant of extraordinary leave. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the provision contained in Rule 8.137, he is entitled for grant of extraordinary leave for a period not exceeding two years. He has further contended that similarly placed employees have been granted leave by exercising discretion under Rule 8.137 and the State cannot discriminate between similarly placed employees. He has drawn our attention to Annexure P-4 to contend that another Lecturer Gurmukh Singh had been granted extraordinary leave for two years from 17.9.2007 to 16.9.2009. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, has taken up the plea that it was purely the discretion of the Government to grant or refuse extraordinary leave to an employee. He has relied on Rule 8.121 for this purpose. He has further contended that grant of extraordinary leave to one employee would not bestow any right on the petitioner as every case has to be considered individually. We have perused Rule 8.137 as well as 8.121. Rule 8.137, no doubt contains a provision for grant of extraordinary leave to the employees but in the said rule there is reference to Rule 8.121 as well. The relevant parts of Rule 8.137 and 8.121 read thus:- “8.137. [The provisions of Rule 8.121 shall also apply to a Government employee not in permanent employment but the period of extraordinary leave on any one occasion does not exceed:- (i) two years in the case of a Government employee who has been in continuous Government service for a CWP No.2775 of 2008 3 period exceeding one year; and (ii) one year in the case of a Government employee whose service is less than one year.” “8.121 (1) Extraordinary leave may be granted to any Government employee in special circumstances:- (a) when no other leave is admissible, or (b) when other leave is admissible, but Government employee concerned applies in writing for the grant of extraordinary leave.” From the rules reproduced above, it is clear that an employee can seek extraordinary leave without pay under Rule 8.137. However, the discretion to grant the leave clearly lies with the Government in view of Rule 8.121 according to which leave may be granted to any Government employee in special circumstances when no other leave is admissible. The words “may be” used in Rule 8.121 leave no room for doubt that discretion to grant leave vests in the Government and it is perfectly within its power to grant leave in a particular case and to decline the same in another. This is a discretionary power embodied in Rule 8.121 to be exercised by the competent authority. The plea regarding discrimination between similarly placed employees is totally devoid of force. Every case has to be assessed in its peculiar facts and circumstances. Grant of leave to one employee does not mean that another employee can ask for it as a matter of right. In the present case, leave application of the petitioner, who applied for leave from 28.2.2008 to 27.2.2010, was rejected keeping in CWP No.2775 of 2008 4 view the interest of the students. Apparently, the competent authority did not find it a fit case for grant of leave as the students studying in Government Senior Secondary School, Virk Kalan, Bathinda, would suffer in case the petitioner was granted extraordinary leave for two years. In our view, the respondent No.2 i.e. Director Public Instruction (SE), Punjab was perfectly within his power to decline grant of extraordinary leave to the petitioner. We thus find no legal infirmity with the impugned order passed by respondent No.2. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE December 5, 2008 'rajpal'