1999 JTR(SC) 461
2000 1 LLJ 122 ; 1999 9 SCC 240 ; 1999 SCC(L&S) 1171 ; 1999 KHC 1524
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N.Phukan : S.R.Babu
State Of Punjab
Versus
Rajeev Sarwal
Case No. : 2575 of 1997
Date of Decision : 4/8/99
A rule mandating a maximum limit of study leave for the entire service is categorical; such a limit cannot be exceeded through the power of relaxation or by invoking Article 14 based on parity with other cases.
Act Referred :PUNJAB STUDY LEAVE RULES: R.5
(A) Study Leave Rules, 1963 - Rule 5 - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Maximum limit of study leave - Interpretation of rule providing for a maximum of twenty-four months of study leave during the entire service - Rule is categorical and the maximum period cannot be exceeded even if leave is granted under other rules - Power of relaxation cannot be read into a provision where the rule mandates a maximum period for the entire service - Action taken by the employer in refusing further leave after the maximum limit was reached is not arbitrary. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - Validity of a rule not challenged before the lower court cannot be gone into by the court. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
A medical officer, having already availed twenty-four months of study leave for a postgraduate degree, applied for further study leave for a superspeciality course. The employer denied the request based on the rule limiting total study leave to twenty-four months during the entire service. The lower court allowed a writ petition on the grounds that the rules could have been relaxed as in other cases, and the denial was contrary to the principle of equality under Article 14.
Findings of Court:
The rule is clear that the maximum period of study leave is twenty-four months for the entire service and not for any part of the service. Relaxation cannot be read into a provision that mandates a maximum limit for the entire service.
Issues: Whether the maximum limit of twenty-four months of study leave under Rule 5 is applicable to the entire service or a part of it, and whether the power of relaxation can be used to exceed this mandatory limit.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a rule categorically mandates a maximum period of leave for the entire service, such a limit is absolute and cannot be exceeded through the power of relaxation or by citing parity with other cases where relaxation was granted.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - Validity of a rule not challenged before the lower court cannot be gone into by the court. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
A medical officer, having already availed twenty-four months of study leave for a postgraduate degree, applied for further study leave for a superspeciality course. The employer denied the request based on the rule limiting total study leave to twenty-four months during the entire service. The lower court allowed a writ petition on the grounds that the rules could have been relaxed as in other cases, and the denial was contrary to the principle of equality under Article 14.
Findings of Court:
The rule is clear that the maximum period of study leave is twenty-four months for the entire service and not for any part of the service. Relaxation cannot be read into a provision that mandates a maximum limit for the entire service.
Issues: Whether the maximum limit of twenty-four months of study leave under Rule 5 is applicable to the entire service or a part of it, and whether the power of relaxation can be used to exceed this mandatory limit.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a rule categorically mandates a maximum period of leave for the entire service, such a limit is absolute and cannot be exceeded through the power of relaxation or by citing parity with other cases where relaxation was granted.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(1) IN this appeal the short question that arises for consideration is the interpretation and application of Rule 5 of the Study Leave Rules, 1963 framed by the Government of Punjab. The respondent joined the service of the appellant as a Medical Officer and at the time of joining the service he was a medical graduate. The respondent availed of study leave in order to join postgraduate course. After serving the department for some time the respondent applied for admission to D.M. in Gastroenterology which is a superspeciality subject and the respondents name was sponsored after obtaining a bond from him. The appellant took the stand that the respondent having availed of 24 months of study leave on an earlier occasion when he obtained postgraduate degree, he is not entitled to any further study leave in terms of Rule 5 of the Study Leave Rules. On that basis the appellant wanted to take action against the respondent.
(2) A writ petition was preferred by the respondent and the High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that the rules could have been relaxed by the Government to extend the benefit of study leave as has been done in several other cases and similar treatment not having been extended to the respondent, the action proposed to be taken by the appellant is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution.
(3) WE do not think the approach of the High Court in this matter is justified. The proper course was to interpret the rule and apply the same. We set out the rule hereunder. for proper appreciation.
(4) THE rule provides that the maximum amount of study leave which may be granted to a Government employee shall be:
"(i) Ordinarily twelve months at any one time, which shall not be exceeded save for exceptional reasons, and (ii) Twenty-four months (inclusive of study leave granted under any other rules) in all during the entire service."
(5) ORDINARILY study leave can be availed for a period of twelve months but may be extended upto 24 months during the entire service. The rule is categorical and does not consist of any doubt regarding this purpose. The maximum period of study leave cannot exceed 24 months even in case where study leave is granted under other rules.
(6) THE contention putforth on behalf of the respondent that the period of study leave could be granted at a time not exceeding 24 months does not stand to reason at all because the rule is very clear that 24 months is relatable to the entire service and not to any part of service. The validity of the rule was not challenged before the High Court. Therefore, that aspect could not be gone into by the High Court. Nor could it be said that the exercise of power by the appellant was arbitrary, in any manner, merely because that power of relaxation was used in certain cases. In our opinion relaxation also cannot be read into a provision of this nature where the rule itself mandates the maximum period to be 24 months for the entire service. The order made by the High Court is, therefore, not sustainable.
(7) HOWEVER, in this case the respondent 5 has already received the benefit and it would not be appropriate to recover any arrears of money if already paid. Subject to what is stated above, the appeal is allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.