IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A NO.445 of 1987 Date of Decision 28.10.2009 Manohar Lal, Sub Inspector Audit, Co-operative Societies (Marketing) Sahhabad Marketing, District Kurukshetra. ........ Appellant Versus The Secretary to Government of Haryana and others. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR Present: Mr.Sunil Panwar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Sanjeev Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. M.M.KUMAR, J. This is plaintiff's appeal directed against the judgment of reversal dated 23.10.1986, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, reversing the view taken by the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. According to the the judgment and decree dated 11.3.1986, passed by the trial Court his suit for declaration was decreed in his favour holding that he was entitled to increment with effect from 15th of October of every calendar year instead of 10th of December, every calendar year. The trial Court had also held that the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to leave of kind due for the period from 6.8.1973 to 30.9.1973, with all consequential benefits. The only substantial question of law which would emerge for determination of this Court is 'whether the plaintiff-appellant could claim earned leave after proceeding on leave on his own in terms of Rule 8.15 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (as applicable to Haryana).' Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff appellant was working in the Co-operative Department and had rendered about 20 years service when he filed the suit on 13.12.1983. His increment was due on 15th October of every calendar year. He claimed that being on earned leave from 6.8.1973 to 30.9.1973, his date of increment could not be postponed from 15th of October to 10th of December, of every calendar year. The department contested the suit by asserting that the plaintiff-appellant was never granted earned leave from 6.8.1973 to 30.9.1973. His leave application was refused by the Chief Auditor Co-operative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh, vide his order dated 12.9.1974, passed under Rule 8.15 of the Rules. As such he was not allowed to claim pay and allowances in respect of the aforesaid period. It was ordered to be debited to his leave account as half average pay under Rule 8.47. Accordingly, the date of the increment of the plaintiff-appellant was shifted from 15.10.1973 to 10.12.1973. The order remained in force and he had been receiving the increment up to December, 1978. He felt the pinch when the pay scale was revised from 1.4.1979. The learned Additional District Judge, has categorically recorded a finding that the application of plaintiff-appellant for earned leave in respect of the period from 6.8.1973 to 30.9.1973, was received in the office only on 14.8.1973, when he had proceeded on leave without any prior permission of the department. On 20.8.1973, he was informed that this leave could not be granted unless he himself appeared in the office. He was also asked to file the medical certificate showing the illness of his mother in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8.15. The aforesaid rule categorically provides that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right and if the exigencies of Public Services so required such a relief can also be refused. However, in the instant case the plaintiff-appellant absented himself from duty with effect from 6.8.1973 to 14.8.1973, when his leave application had reached the office. The view of the learned Additional District Judge, in that regard is explicit from the perusal of para No.9 of the judgment which reads thus: “In the back drop of the facts decided above, the order of the Chief Auditor rejecting the application of the plaintiff for earned leave was legal and justified. It amounts to indiscipline on that part of the plaintiff to proceed on leave without even applying for leave. He should have awaited for the orders on his application under Rule 8.16, but he proceeded on leave even without applying for it and even without awaiting for the order in his belated application dated 14.8.1986. He even did not care to attend the office, when he was informed on 20.8.1973. He has not even submitted the medical certificate of the illness of his mother. Hence, there was no valid ground for the plaintiff to proceed on earned leave from 6.8.1973 to 30.9.1973. The impugned order rejecting the application of the plaintiff for earned leave from 6.8.1973 to 30.9.1973 is, therefore, legal and valid. The findings of the lower court on issues No.1, 2 and 3 are, therefore, perverse and set aside. All these issues are, therefore, decided in favour of the appellant-defendants.” Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the question of law has to be answered against the plaintiff-appellant and in favour of the defendant-respondent. It would be appropriate to read Rule 8.15 which is as under: “Leave cannot be claimed as of right. When the exigencies of the Public services so require, discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description is reserved to the authority empowered is to grant it. The nature of leave due and applied for by a Government employee, cannot be altered at the option of the sanctioning authority. So while it is open to the sanctioning authority to refuse or revoke leave due and application for under this rule it is not open to him to alter the nature of such leave.” A perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that an employee cannot claim leave as a matter of right. The authorities are even vested with their power to refuse or revoke leave by keeping in view the exigencies of the Public Services. However, after the leave has been sanctioned the nature of the same cannot be altered at the option of the sanctioning authority. Therefore, the plaintiff-appellant cannot have claimed on 14.8.1973, that he must be given earned leave from a retrospective dated 6.8.1973 to 30.9.1973. The plaintiff-appellant, had already absented himself so he was rightly asked to appear in person on 20.8.1973 alongwith the relevant documents showing the illness of his mother. The plaintiff-appellant did not appear nor he produced any document in support of the claim that his mother was not well. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, are not open to any challenge on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the findings are hereby affirmed. Once a leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right then it follows that the plaintiff-appellant was treated to be absent for the aforesaid period and the date of his increment was accordingly advanced. His date of increment which used to be 15th of October, every calendar year was shifted to 10th of December, every calendar year. Therefore, I find nothing wrong in the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. As a sequel to the above discussion the question of law is decided against the plaintiff-appellant and in favour of the respondent-defendants. Consequently the appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. (M.M.KUMAR) 28.10.2009 JUDGE rishu