SBCWP No.6403/94. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6403/1994. Maya Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and others Date of order : October 14, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Vinod Gupta for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) Petitioner who is working as Teacher Grade- III has assailed in this writ petition, order of the respondents dated 23/7/1993 (Ann.8) by which, she was granted extraordinary leave for the period from 25/11/1990 till 25/8/1992 for a period of 655 days though inadvertantly, date 25/8/1992 in the said order has been referred to as 28/2/1992. The petitioner has challenged the said order on the premise that she was granted leave enabling her to prosecute studies of M.Sc. Botany which is of the durarion of two years. She was relieved vide order dated 24/11/1990 and, thereafter, when she rejoined, impugned-order dated 23/7/1993 was passed. The conditions of the said order are too harsh and are highly unreasonable and arbitrary. The order states SBCWP No.6403/94. 2 that as per the spirit of the order, aforesaid period of extraordinary leave shall have to be treated as break in service inasmuch as, annual grade increments of the petitioner have been deferred for two years. Learned counsel referring to Rule 96 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, "RSR") argued that extraordinary leave could be granted to the petitioner only when no other leave was admissible as per any other rule whereas Rule 110 of the RSR provides for grant of study leave in the case like present one. It was therefore prayed that writ petition may be allowed and the impugned-order may be quashed and set-aside. 3) Shri B.L. Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that petitioner wanted to prosecute higher studies on her own and answering-respondents did not require her to do so. When the petitioner applied, Director Primary & Secondary Education Rajasthan Bikaner vide order dated 30/7/1990 permitted her to prosecute higher studies. It was therefore that she was required to proceed on higher studies and was relieved on 24/11/1990. When she rejoined, the period of absence was regularised by granting extraordinary leave and since for this period, petitioner was granted extraordinary leave, she could not be given increments which had fallen due in between. Learned Additional Government Counsel argued that according to Rule 110, study leave could be granted only if a permanent government servant pursue study or SBCWP No.6403/94. 3 investigation of a scientific or technical nature which in the opinion of the sanctioning authority is considered necessary in the public interest for the working of the department in which he/she is employed. 4) Upon consideration of the arguments aforesaid and perusal of the material forming part of the record, I find that petitioner was working as Teacher Grade-III. She was relieved for prosecuting higher studies under the instructions of the Director Primary & Secondary Education Rajasthan Bikaner. She during the leave period obtained post graduate qualification of M.Sc. Botany with Ist Division. She has produced on record document to show that her results for the years 1992-93 & 1993-94 immediately improved immediately after she resumed duties. The petitioner was discharging the work of teaching and according to Rule 110, study leave could be admissible to a permanent government servant pursuing study which in the opinion of the sanctioning authority is considered necessary in the public interest for the working of the department in which he/she is employed. Rule 110 provides that study leave could be granted to enable a government servant to pursue study or investigation of a scientific or technical nature which in the opinion of the sanctioning authority is considered necessary in the public interest for the working of the department in which he/she belongs. However, it further provided that study leave shall not be more than 24 months. SBCWP No.6403/94. 4 Rule 96 of RSR provides that extraordinary leave may be granted to a government servant in special circumstances when no other leave by rule is admissible. Here, in the present case, it is clear that Rule 110 is a specific rule which provides for grant of study leave and therefore it cannot be said that leave for the purpose of which it was applied for was not admissible by any other rule. Rules 110 and 112 specifically apply to the facts situation like the present one. In the circumstances, action of the respondents whereby, on the one hand, they sanctioned extraordinary leave and on the other hand, they denied giving annual grade increments for two years to the petitioner in between, cannot be justified in law. 5) In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned-order dated 23/7/1993 (Annexure-8) is quashed and set-aside. Petitioner would be entitled to consequential benefits. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date, copy of the same is submitted to the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil