Jasbir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)

Jurisdiction of this court has been invoked under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order office dated 18.02.2026(Annexure P-14) whereby the representation of the petitioner for cancellation of his leave from 01.04.2016 to 14.01.2018 has been rejected and for issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to release the salary and other dues etc of the petitioner from 01.04.2016 to 14.01.2018 along with interest in view of the fact that the petitioner made a request in view of the fact that the petitioner made a request to the respondents for cancellation of his 3 years leave for self employment in a foreign country w.e.f. 15.01.2015 to 14.01.2018 and the petitioner reported on duty on 01.04.2016 and continued to perform his duties continuously from 01.04.2016 onwards.

Brief facts of the case succinctly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as a Ticket Verifier in the office of Respondent no.3/General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Pathankot and retired as Inspector on 30.06.2024. The Government of Punjab issued a self employment scheme for permitting its employees to work abroad for green pastures. The petitioner availed the said scheme and applied for 3 years leave which was sanctioned w.e.f. 15.01.2015 to 14.01.2018 by Respondent No.2/ Director State Transport vide office order dated 31.12.2014 and conveyed by Respondent No.3/ General Manager to the petitioner vide his office letter date 14.01.2015. Unfortunately, the weather conditions in the foreign country did not suit the petitioner consequently and he was constrained to return back to India because of health issues and after reaching India, petitioner made a request for cancellation of his 3 years leave and o permit him to join the duties w.e.f.01.04.2016.

The petitioner accordingly gave his adjoining report on duty in the office of Respondent no.3 on 01.04.2016 and his representation for cancellation of leave. Respondent no.2 vide order dated 20.12.2016 rejected the request of the petitioner for cancellation of leave without assigning any reason for the same. The petitioner thereafter filed CWP No.15206 of 2017 seeking quashing of order dated 20.12.2016 declining his request for cancellation of leave from 15.01.2015 to 14.01.2018 and for release of salary w.e.f 01.04.2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.07.2022 since the petitioner was allowed to join the duty on 15.01.2016 therefore no cause of action survived. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted detailed representation dated 27.03.2026 to the respondents for release of the salary along with all the benefits for the period from 01.04.2016 to 15.01.2018 and at last on 18.02.2026, the respondents rejected the representation of the petitioner.

Hence, this petition.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was issued leave w.e.f. 15.01.2015 to 14.01.2018 under the self employment scheme but due to non conducive weather conditions, the petitioner had to return back to India in March 2016 and thereafter he gave his joining report on duty on 01.04.2016 and his representation for cancellation of leave and permission to join the duty was forwarded to Respondent no.2.

It is contended that Respondent no.2 vide order dated 20.12.2016 rejected the request of the petitioner for cancellation of leave without assigning any reason for the same which compelled him to file CWP No. 15206 of 2017 seeking quashing of the order dated 20.12.2016 which was withdrawn with a liberty to take recourse to the alternate remedy available.

It is further contended that the respondent did not take any action on the representation dated 27.03.2025(Annexure P-11) hence the petitioner was constrained again to approach the court by filing CWP No. 19454 of 2025 which was disposed of by this court vide order dated 15.07.2025 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation within a period of 6 months. (Annexure P-13) which was decided on 18.02.2026 vide which an order was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

It is argued that the respondents in the impugned order have not distinguished the case of the similarly situated employee Sh. Arun Prakash Bhalla Junior Technician whose leave w.e.f. 02.04.2012 to 01.04.2017 was cancelled by the respondents and he was paid salary for the said period vide order dated 10.06.2016(Annexure P-12) passed by the respondents.

Heard counsel for the petitioner at length.

Having heard counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, this court finds that according to Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel, Punjab vide letter no.6/21/2002/01PP3/5108, dated 08.05.2002 very clearly mandates that after taking leave under the scheme of Self employment, the concerned employee shall not be able to curtail the leave before a period of 3 years. The relevant clause (Chh) of the letter dated 08.05.2002 is reproduced herein below:-

Meaning thereby, an employee who has availed Special Leave for self-employment cannot curtail the leave within the first three years. Rejoining Government service is permissible only after completion of a minimum period of three years and before expiry of five years.

Moreover, the parity claimed by the petitioner with his similarly situated employee Sh. Arun Prakash Bhalla does not hold good in the instant petition as perusal of the order dated 10.06.2016(Annexure P-12) makes it amply clear that Sh. Arun Prakash Bhalla, has passed the condition of three years leave as per the condition in the instructions dated 08.05.2002 of the Punjab Government wherein the employee cannot cancel the leave before passing of three years leave.

Having regard to the nature and scheme of the policy, particularly the clause reproduced hereinabove, and further considering that the petitioner cannot claim parity with the employee relied upon as being similarly situated, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for such parity is made out. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any shall disposed of.