KAUSER PARVEEN Vs. STATE
LAWS(J&K)-1986-2-7
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on February 28,1986

Kauser Parveen Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE petitioner was sanctioned earned leave from 31.3. 1986 subject to the condition that "she will not extend the same nor should she take any assignment during or after the end of the leave". After the expiry of 93 days earned leave sanctioned in her favour with effect from 11 -3 -1986, she applied for extension of leave which was refused on the ground that the sanction of leave had originally been granted in favour of the petitioner subject to certain conditions one of which being that no further extension shall be asked for. The petitioner has called in question the order dated List of June 1986 whereby the extension had been it refused as also the condition contained in the leave sanctioning order cared 6 -3 -1986.
(2.) THAT no leave can be claimed as a matter of right is a part of civil service Regulations and is not disputed. The submission of Mr. shah however is that within the meaning of Art. 13l of the C. S. R. special reasons for refusing the extension of leave have to be furnished by the competent authority and since no special reasons have been furnished in the impugned order the same is bad in law. In principle the argument that Article 131 of C.S.R. contemplates that special reasons should be given for refusing extension of leave is sound but so for as the facts of the present case are concerned that argument has no application. In the instant case, the order sanctioning the leave itself contained the pre -condition that the petitioner would not extend the leave as leave was granted by the Principal of the Medical College and the principal would have known as to what were the administrative requirements. Since the petitioner availed of the leave sanctioned in her favour vide order -dated 6 -3 -1986 and did not question the condition obligation imposed therein it does not now lie in her mouth to say that condition should not have been imported in the order of sanction dated 8 -3 -1986 and that the condition/obligation is treated to be bad. If the petitioner had reservations about the condition, she should have brought the same to the notice of the Principal when the leave was sanctioned in her favour and it was open to her to avail or not to avail of the leave which bad been made subject to that condition, but after having availed of the leave she cannot say that the condition was not valid and be declared as bad. Having obtained the benefit under the sanction order the petitioner cannot be permitted to repudiate the exception/condition contained in the sanction. In taking this view we are fortified by the observations of the Supreme Court in AIR 1973 Sc 698 wherein their Lordships while dealing with a service matter opined that: "The benefit of an instrument carries with it the obligation to be subject to the burden which it imposes,"
(3.) THE argument of Mr. Z.A. Shah must therefore fail. That apart, so far as the order of refusal is concerned, it only relies upon the condition contained in the order of sanction" dated 6.3.1983. The refusal to grant extension was made on the basis of the condition which the petitioner had accepted while proceeding on leave w. e. f. 11.3.1986 and that would be a good and special reason for refusal of extension;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.