Punjab & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Bansal  INSC 1234 (16 July 2009)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4532 OF
2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 29265 of 2008) STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
...APPELLANT (S) VERSUS ORDER KAPADIA, J.
question which arises for determination in this case is whether the High Court
was right in directing the Administration to grant special leave of five years
for self employment to the respondent on the ground of alleged discrimination
in grant of such special leave to others and not to the respondent.
leave is not a matter of right vested in the employee. It depends on the
administrative exigencies. In the present case the respondent is working as a
Medical Officer. He had applied for special leave for three years under the
Scheme which is Annexure P-3 collectively in the Special Leave Petition Paper
Book. We have gone through Annexure P-3. It merely categorizes employees who
are entitled to apply for special leave and those who cannot apply for special
leave. Such policy does not confer any right on the applicant to obtain special
leave. On facts, the question of striking down the Order of Administration does
not arise for the simple reason that in the counter the Administration has
stated that shortage of doctors is one of reasons for not granting special
leave. In our view these are matters which fall in the category of
"administrative exigencies" and this Court cannot sit in Appeal
thereon. In the 2 circumstances, the High Court had erred in coming to the
conclusion that the Management had erred in refusing the application for want
the case of discrimination it is for the Administration/Management to take into
account the contingencies which may arise in the course of administration.
services of an employee may be required in a given case on more emergent basis
vis- a-vis other employees. In such cases the services rendered by an employee,
his seniority, the nature of work which he is required to do, his
responsibilities etc. are required to be taken into account while taking
decision on such applications. Lastly, it may be stated that in the Original
Writ Petition, factual malafides have not been pleaded by the respondent.
circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs.
KAPADIA ] New Delhi, ....................J July 16, 2009 [ AFTAB ALAM ] 3 ITEM
NO.10 COURT NO.4 SECTION IVB SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).29265/2008 (From the
judgment and order dated 06/08/2008 in CWP No. 13630/2007 of The HIGH COURT OF
PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH) STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS SANJAY KUMAR BANSAL Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and
office report) Date: 16/07/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM For Petitioner(s) Mr.
H.M. Singh, Adv.
Jasmeet Kaur, Adv.
Praveen Kumar, Adv.
Respondent(s) Mr. A.Venayagam Balan,Adv.
hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER Leave granted.
Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
Thapar) (Madhu Saxena) PS to Registrar Court Master 4 The signed reportable
order is placed on the file.