CWP(T) No. 9060/2008 09.11.2011 Present: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A. G. with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents-State Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- i) That the office order dated 4-2-1998 (Annexure PB) giving the details of the leaves to be deducted from the leave account of the applicant be quashed being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, un-fair and un-justified. ii) Office order dated 3-8-1998 (Annexure PD) be quashed being discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal and null and void. iii) Office Memo No. AGR-MND( C) 15-2/2000-10967 dated 8- 1-2002, referred to in annexure PJ dated 23-3-2002 be quashed as arbitrary, discriminatory, null and void and illegal. 2. It is not in dispute that petitioner’s name, amongst others was sponsored for undertaking course in B.Sc. (Agriculture) during the academic session 1993-94, from H.P. Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Palampur. Study leave for a period of 24 months was granted in his favour. However petitioner completed the course in four years. Respondents rejected the petitioner’s request for granting him study leave for a period of three years. He was claiming the same on the basis of leave granted to other similarly situated persons who had undertaken similar course in the year 1992-93. 3. The fact that three years study leave was granted in favour of such persons, in relaxation of normal rule of undertaking B.Sc. (Agriculture) course is evident from the sanction order dated 3.11.1997 (Annexure PF). Respondents themselves have subsequently issued instructions dated 22.8.1997 (Annexure PE), relevant extract whereof is as under:- “A proposal to allow study leave for more than two years, in such cases has been under examination of this Department. It has now been decided that the maximum amount of study leave shall be three years as a special case in respect of all such cases where the course of higher studies in a professional or technical subject having a direct and close connection with the sphere of duties of a Govt. servant spans three years or more than three years at a stretch.” 4. Thus the impugned orders dated 3-8-1998 (Annexure PD) and 23.3.2002 (Annexure PJ) are quashed. Significantly the stand taken by the respondents, while passing the impugned orders, rejecting the petitioner’s claim for grant of study leave for a period of three years, that the instructions dated 22.8.1997 (Annexure PE) cannot apply retrospectively, stands falsified from his own conduct and interpretation thereof which is evident from the sanction letter dated 3.11.1997 itself. Evidently, sanction accorded in favour of the persons named therein pertained to the period 1992. 5. As such, petition is allowed. It stands clarified that petitioner shall be entitled to grant of study leave for a period of three years only and recovery with regard to the 4th year shall be effected from the petitioner immediately. Petitioner undertakes to pay the amount within a period of six months from today. Interim order dated 22.5.2002 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. 6. With these observations, petition stands disposed of. Copy dasti. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. November 09, 2011 (rana)