Study leave a privilege, can’t be claimed as a matter of right: HC
In April 2018, Pandit BD Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, had declined his request, citing Regulation 27 of the University Employees Leave Regulations, which states that paid study leave can be granted only if 75% of the total strength of the teachers of the department are available and working. But at that point of time, the percentage would have fallen to 68.18%, if his leave was approved.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled that study leave granted to an employee is a privilege and can’t be claimed as a matter of right.
The high court bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Anil Kshetarpal refused to interfere with the decision of Pandit BD Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, wherein it had rejected a study leave application from a doctor, Vikas Chaudhary, prompting him to move court in 2018.
Chaudhary, after completing doctorate in medicine (cardiology) from PGIMS, Rohtak, had joined the institute as assistant professor in the department of medicine in December 2013. In January 2017, he applied for paid study leave for admission to DM (cardiology) in AIIMS, New Delhi.
In April 2018, the varsity declined his request, citing Regulation 27 of the University Employees Leave Regulations, which states that paid study leave can be granted only if 75% of the total strength of the teachers of the department are available and working. But at that point of time, the percentage would have fallen to 68.18%, if his leave was approved.
In his plea, the doctor had contended that the employees are entitled to paid study leave and that the action of the respondent is discriminatory.
The court found that as per varsity regulations, it is provided if 75% of the total strength of teachers is available in the concerned department. It is a facility given to permanent teachers to improve their qualification provided they have already worked for a period of a year. The ultimate purpose for grant of study leave is for the purpose of utilising one’s knowledge for improvement of facilities for the period of the next five years (if availed, he can’t leave institute for next five years), the court observed.
“This rule does not lead to creation of corresponding right in favour of the employee or corresponding duty of the employer. It is only a concession, or a benefit extended to the employee by the employer,” the court recorded adding that the prime object of sanction of paid study leave assesses the future requirement of the university.
“Concession of paid study leave is not a vested right of the employee. In fact, it is a privilege granted by the university to its permanent employees, who fulfil the requirements of the Regulations. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of vested right that he is entitled to paid study leave. There is a difference between right and privilege/concession. A privilege can be given on certain specific grounds, which can be refused or withdrawn, at any point of time,” the court remarked upholding the decision of varsity.
It further added that once the benefit of this privilege is based on intelligible differentia and has a nexus to the object of the regulation, the refusal will not be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court can’t interfere as it is not a legal and judicially enforceable right. So, the discretion is with the employer to sanction the leave or not, it further added, stating that in view of this, the court does not find it appropriate to interfere in the orders refusing to sanction paid study leave.