Study leave to prosecute llb granted
MUMTAZ
(Querist) 25 October 2014
This query is : Resolved
I am working in Railways since 14 years as a ministerial staff. I have qualified in LAWCET 2014 and accordingly applied for study leave. As per Railway Board Instructions, the competent authority has sanctioned study leave for a period of 24 months w.e.f.10.11.2014 and a memorandum to this effect was issued. Accordingly, i have executed a bond prescribed and submitted. The bond was sent to Accounts department for certification. And as per SOP the Accounts concerrance is not required. Whereas the Accounts department rejected stating that ministerial staff are not eligible for prosecuting LLB Course on his own perception, who is not a competent authority overriding the discretion of the authority granted leave and against to the Railway Board Instructions. I have obtained information from Railway Board under RTI that the effect that no guidliness are issued by the directorates in regard to the particular course of study is eligible for study leave. I have taken admission into college for 3 years LLB relying on the study leave granted to me and informed the Administration. Till now , i did not recieve official communication of the cancellation of study leave. The department in which i am working do not take positive action and simply cancells my study leave, i cannot complete the course doing regular job and regular study and also that i will incur financial loss. In this context, please guide me what action to be taken legally so that the study leave granted to me does not get cancelled and avail the study leave granted w.e.f.10.11.2014. Please suggest me.
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 25 October 2014
It amounts to promissory estoppel.Nobody could be blamed for the error.The Railway Administration should accord extraordinary leave since you were not at fault.
Guest
(Expert) 25 October 2014
Fight your case vigorously with the department first. You may ask for the copy of Rule and Government of India, Railway Board's orders/ decision under which you are ineligible for taking up of LLB course. After that, if Railways fail to bestow justice to you, file a case in the CAT to get justice.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 25 October 2014
On receipt of the refusal, file the case with CAT.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 25 October 2014
There is no promissory estopple against statutory violation.
Study leave is granted to a Govt servant for undertaking a course suitable for effective discharge of his duties.
Audit has a duty to see whether the benefit given is admissible as well as authroised. The leave was in their view authroised but not admissible.
In any case continuous 2 years leave will not be sufficient to complete LLB.
Since your controlling officers are ready to give you leave you are free to avail all other admissibel leaves.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 25 October 2014
Further you can , if you feel rules are misinterpreted against you , you can move to CAT after submitting detailed representation to the department.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 25 October 2014
You have applied for the study leave for perusing 3 years course.
The department ought to have given 3 years leave but had given only 2 years leave. It is not possible to complete the course within 2 years. So the department will extend its leave for another 1 year.
You have a strong merits in your case. If they reject your request for extension for another 1 year, approach the Court, you have bright chances to get a favorable order.
Guest
(Expert) 25 October 2014
Legally when you want to Study for 3 years being in Govt Job you have to Resign the job.They might consider the same if the Studies were connected to your Job other wise you will not have any bright chances in court since it would be a Wrong Example to Others.It is a wrong decision of Dept granting you any Leave.You should Decide whether Job or Studies.
Guest
(Expert) 25 October 2014
Arunagiri ji and NJS Rajkumar ji,
The maximum amount of sudy leave is for 24 months, which an employee can avail during his whole service. He can avail other kinds of leave due to him or extraordinary leave in combination with study leave.
So, no more than 24 months of study leave he can avail. It cannot be linked with the duration of any course, if exeeds two years.
Guest
(Expert) 25 October 2014
Thanks to Senior Expert Mr.P.S.Dhingra and I do with draw my statements as I Genuinely feel I am Wrong.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 25 October 2014
"Legally when you want to Study for 3 years being in Govt Job you have to Resign the job."
Despite utmost regard to Mr NJS Rajkumar, I am constrained to unconditionally disagree with above views.
I have never heard or read any such condition of Government service.
On the contrary there are following conditions in service :-
(i) One has to seek permission of the deptt for prosecuting higher studies.
(ii) One can be granted study leave, subject to conditions [which in this case he does not appear to be fulfilling].
(iii) qualification so obtained will form part of his service record and he can apply for any other post wherein such higher qualification is required.
In practice many Govt servants (including members of Armed Forces and Policemen) enhance their qualification during service. Mostly they complete graduation. Many peons complete matriculation and +2.
In practice Delhi University is having 3 centers of evening law classes and many such universities offer such courses. These classes are full of Govt servants which at times include IPS officers.
In this case [though study leave technically not admissible] it appears that his controlling authorities are able to spare his absence, so it matters little for them as to which leave he can avail. He can certainly avail any other kind of leave if necessary in broken spells)
Continuous 36 days leave is not required for completing LLB (including minimum attendance and examination).
Guest
(Expert) 25 October 2014
The Replies of Expert Mr.Sudhir Kumar is Most Welcome and I once again wish to State that I had WithDrawn My Statements after the Corrections Of Senior Expert Mr.P.S.Dhingra Please.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 27 October 2014
I fully concur with the advice of Mr.Sudhir Kumar and Mr.Dhingra and Mr.Arunagiri.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 27 October 2014
I concur with the views of expert Mr. Sudhir Kumar and expert Mr. Dhingra on the subject issue.
MUMTAZ
(Querist) 03 November 2014
While thanking you the kind views, I herewith mention the Condidition for granting study leave to Railway employees as per Appendix V to Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol.I
1. Conditions for grant of study leave. —(1) Study leave may be granted
to a railway servant with due regard to the exigencies of public service to enable
him to undergo, in or out of India a special course of study consisting of higher
studies or a technical subject having a direct and close connection with the sphere
of his duty.
2. Study leave may also be granted—
(i) for a course of training or study tour in which a railway servant may not
attend a regular academic or semi-academic course if the course of
training or the study tour is certified to be of definite advantage to
Government from the point of view of public interest and is related to
sphere of duties of the railway servant ; and
(ii) for the purposes of studies connected with the framework or
background of public administration subject to the conditions that—
(a) the particular study tour should be approved by the
authority competent to grant leave;
(b) the railway servant should be required to submit on his
return, a full report on the work done by him while on,
study leave.
(iii) for the studies which may not be closely or directly connected
with the work of a railway servant, but which are capable of
widening his mind in a manner likely to improve his abilities as a
civil servant and to equip him better to collaborate with those
employed in other branches of the public service.
(3) Study leave shall not be granted unless:--
(i) it is certified by the authority competent to grant leave the
proposed course of study or training shall be of definite
advantage from the point of view of public interest;
(ii) it is for prosecution of studies other than academic, or
literary subjects;
2 Maximum amount of study leave: - (1) The maximum amount of study
leave, which may be granted to a Railway servant, other than Railway Medical
Service Officers, shall be -
(a) ordinarily twelve months at any one time, and
(b) during his entire service, twenty-four months in all (inclusive of similar
kind of leave for study or training granted under any other rules).
In may case, the competent authority has granted study leave in terms of Para-1(2)(3) above.
As per Schedule of Powers,-a certificate to the effect that the bond is executed by the employee is to be furnished to Accounts. Accordingly, the bond executed by me was sent to accounts department wrongly interpretting the rule and to disallow study leave to Group-C employees, saying that Ministerial Staff are not eligible to prosecute LLB Course.
The Accounts department is not vested with the power to interpret the rule or decide the eligibility of the study leave with a view that if allowed it becomes precedence.
It is the discretionary power of he Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) to grant study leave and is the authority competent to grant leave and he sanctioned study leave to me.
Because of intereference of Accounts and wrong presumption, the study leave granted to me is at confusion.
Please guide me
MUMTAZ
(Querist) 03 November 2014
Sir, does the following study leave rule avoids the ministrial staff to prosecute LLB Course
(iii) for the studies which may not be closely or directly connected
with the work of a railway servant, but which are capable of
widening his mind in a manner likely to improve his abilities as a
civil servant and to equip him better to collaborate with those
employed in other branches of the public service.
1. Does this study leave rule prescibe any particular course.
2. Can the discretion of the competent authority be questioned. If yes, in what circumstances and by whom.
3. Accounts whose role is to see whether the rule is followed are not, can interfere with the decision of competent authority with wrong perception.
4. Can a study leave to Group-C employees be denied on the ground that it becomes precedent.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 04 November 2014
1. Does this study leave rule prescribe any particular course.
ANS : NOT AT ALL. YOU HAVE READ THE RULE IF SUCH LIST COULD HAVE BEEN THERE YOU COULD HAVE KNOWN.
THE DEPTT HAS TO DECIDED WHETHER THE SAID COURSE WILL OF "definite advantage to
Government from the point of view of public interest and is related to
sphere of duties of the railway servant"
2. Can the discretion of the competent authority be questioned. If yes, in what circumstances and by whom.
ANS : NOT CHANGEABLE.
3. Accounts whose role is to see whether the rule is followed are not, can interfere with the decision of competent authority with wrong perception.
ANS : NOT AT ALL. EVEN A 10TH PASS (NOW +2) CAN JOIN AS CLERK (OR EVEN BE PROMOTED FROM GP-D) IN ACCOUNTS DEPTT AND QUALIFICATION OF JR ACCOUNTANT (EVEN FOR GAZETTED ENTRY THROUGH UPSC CIV SERVICE EXAMINATION) IS PLAIN GRADUATE.
THE SAS EXAMINATION WHICH IS HIGHLY PROFESSIONAL FOR ACCOUNTS PEOPLE COMPRISES A SYLLABUS FOR GOVT RULES ONLY AND THE GOVT BELIEVES SAS QUALIFIED ACCOUNTS PERSONS ARE THE BEST. THIS EXAM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SYLLABUS OF LLB (law of crime, Tort, International Law, TP ACt, Land laws,Company law, Jurisprudence., Legal History, Easement Arbitration......)
STUDY LEAVE IS NOT GIVEN EVEN FOR SAA EXAMINATION.
4. Can a study leave to Group-C employees be denied on the ground that it becomes precedent.
ANS : YOU HAVE READ THE RULE. IT DOES NOT RELATE TO CLASSIFICATION. THE INADMISSIBLE LEAVE CAN BE DENIED TO GUARD AGAINST PRECEDENCE SO THAT OTHERS COULD NOT INVOKE ARTICLE 14&16 TO BE TREATED EQUALLY.
Guest
(Expert) 04 November 2014
In this case interference of the Accounts Department is uncalled for, as the Accounts & Finance people are not supposed to create hinderance in sanctioning of leave which is within the competence of the leave sanctioning authority. First of all the Accounts department is not competent to reject the leave sanctioned by the competent authority. Secondly, if they believe that ministerial staff are not eligible for prosecuting LLB Course, they could have come forward by quoting rule or decision of the Railway Board under which the ministerial staff was not eligible for prosecuting LLB course. The leave sanctioning authority should be able to scuttle down the unfair and irregular move of the Accounts Department.
You may first represent the leave sanctioning authority/ appellate authority on these grounds and if they do not agree may file the case in the CAT/ Competent court to get justice after following due procedure.
Guest
(Expert) 04 November 2014
Mr. Sudhir,
With reference to your quote, "STUDY LEAVE IS NOT GIVEN EVEN FOR SAS EXAMINATION," I may point out that there is no comparison between the departmental SAS exam and a regular course of study, like LLB or other professional/ academic course. SAS is not a regular course of study which is conducted by some university, but is merely an exam with reference to the rules and regulations of the Government of India, which can be studies at the spare time of an employee.
Anirudh
(Expert) 04 November 2014
Dear Mumtaz,
Please indicate, what is your current sphere of duty and how the proposed LL.B. course is having a direct and close connection with the sphere of your duty.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 04 November 2014
SAS examination is the best suited for professional excellence in the field of accounts in Govt deptt. Not all qualify. the date of examination is treated as duty. But study leave is not given even for preparing for that.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 04 November 2014
Audit deptt role is not beyond jurisdiction in this case. The have a duty to see if the expenditure is (i) admisible ; as well as (ii) authorised.
In this case the leave salary expenditure is not at all admissible unless the deptt is satisfied the course is of "definite advantage to Government from the point of view of public interest and is related to
sphere of duties of the railway servant"
Guest
(Expert) 04 November 2014
Mr. Sudhir,
You are again confusing a full time course of a university and a departmental exam of about 3/4 days. So far as treatment of SAS exam days as duty, SAS is not a single exam where the exam dates are treated as duty, exam days of all other departmental examinations are also treated as duty when conducted by the concerned department, itself, not by any university.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 04 November 2014
I am not at all confusing.
I am just harping that SAS is a very sacred exam to the accounts personnel. It is so sacred that the examination days are part of duty.
But But accounts persons are not given any Study leave for preparing for this exam.
On the contrary the the applicant is wanting study leave for a course on which the deptt has not taken any policy decision of its being useful to the job content of the candidate.
The applicant appears to be more interested in study leave rather than LLB.
Many Govt servants (including IPS officers) are completing LLB without study leave.
Or else I will be happy to be proved wrong if the applicant moves to court and wins.
Guest
(Expert) 04 November 2014
Mr. Sudhir,
There is no use of side-tracking the issue. The query relates to study leave for a full time University course, not for some departmental examination. Study leave is not permissible for any departmental exams in any of the Government department. So, there is no question of grant of study leave to any accounts person/candidate of SAS for preparing for that exam. So, sacred or not, harping about departmental SAS exam was quite irrelevant for the purpose of suggesting the solution for problem of study leave for 3-yrs LLB course. You probably forget that the querist has come forward for guidance/solution to her problem, if the experts have, not to seek support for the negative attitude of the accounts department.
So far as the audit is concerned, even they are not competent to raise any useless objection, if not supported by any Rule, decision, or instruction of the Government. The authorities are fully competent to challenge baseless audit objection, if those are raised just to demonstrate supremacy of the audit.
So far as your statement, "applicant appears to be more interested in study leave rather than LLB", is concerned, the question arises, why the candidate should not be concerned for the facility when rules provide so? If he does not get study leave, you may better suggest what should the other course for him to attend a regular course. I wish you could know that if employee fails to complete the course the study leave is converted in to regular leave due to the employee and the balance as extraordinary leave. SO, STUDY LEAVE IS NOT GRANTED FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE, RATHER FOR ADDING QUALIFICATION AND TALENT FOR HIM for the mutual benefit of the department as well as for him/her.
When he was granted study by the competent authority, he was supposed to have been satisfied, irrespective of whether the accounts department was satisfied or not.
However, if you believe that the study leave was not admissible to the applicant, you are welcome to quote the relevant rule or the decision of the Government of India or the Railway Board.
Unnecessary and undue curtailment of the delegated powers of the authorities by anyone just tend to hamper the productivity of the employees and the department concerned, besides becoming the cause of frustration of the employees.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 04 November 2014
I am convinced study rule is not admissible rule has already been quoted by the querist.
Guest
(Expert) 04 November 2014
Mr. Sudhir,
If you are convinced, you may better quote specific sentence/para of the study leave rules, which states that study leave was not admissible to the querist.
Also please indicate whaich part of the the study leave rules stated that the sanction would be subject to the approval by the accounts department.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 04 November 2014
I have already quoted the study leave rule produced by the querist.
will be proved wrong if she gets a favourable CAT judgement compelling the deptt to grant study leave even if in the opinion of deptt the course does not meet the requirement f rule :-
"definite advantage to Government from the point of view of public interest and is related to sphere of duties of the railway servant"
Guest
(Expert) 04 November 2014
Mr Sudhir,
Probably, you have not read that the study leave had already been granted by the competent leave sanctioning authority, which clearly indicates that he would have taken in to consideration the "definite advantage to Government from the point of view of public interest and is related to sphere of duties of the railway servant."
The querist has not stated anywhere that the accounts department has objected on this issue. The accounts department has merely stated that the study leave cannot be granted to ministerial staff and that too without quoting any rule or order of the Railway department.
There is nothing in the study leave rules that can hinder judgment of CAT in favour of the applicant. Only negative minded Officers of the Government of India do not prefer to extend the facilities to the subordinate staff what Government prescribes for all employees in order to raise the level of skills of the employees. Contrarily, they feel as if all facilities are reserved for themselves only.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 04 November 2014
I have well read the rules and happen to be the only member on this thread asserting that she is not entitled.
The author herself has created evidence through RTI that there are no guidelines issued by railway board.
Let her approach CAT as advised by Mr Dhingra.
I will be happy to be proved wrong if she wins.
By the way the author does not have even the courtesy to disclose designation and jopb contents.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 04 November 2014
I further fee that the said "competent authority" if he has sanctioned a study leave for a course which is not approved by the deptt and in view of the audit is not admissible.
The either he should be able to convince the audit regarding correctness of his decision or should recall the employee.
He is rendering himself liable for disciplinary action.
IN case a proper justification of sanctioned leave is not provided to the accounts deptt then they are justified to stop leave salary bill.
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 05 November 2014
The confrontation within the Administration and Accounts need not pass on the same to the staff,rather it could be resolved wihtin.Could you post the sanction and the rejection here so that clear advise could be given?
MUMTAZ
(Querist) 05 November 2014
Sir, i am working as Office Superientendent in personnel department of Railways. Every staff in Personnel department will be dealing with the Court cases pertaining to service matters in regard to preparing of counters/affidavits, briefing advocates for effective contesting, attending courts in connection with summons, salary attachments, prohibitory orders, raising orders etc. along with other duties.
I would like to mention that there are 02 rules pertaining to study leave rules of Indian Railways, which are
1. Conditions for grant of study leave. —(1) Study leave may be granted to a railway servant with due regard to the exigencies of public service to enable him to undergo, in or out of India a special course of study consisting of higher studies or a technical subject having a direct and close connection with the sphere of his duty.
2. Study leave may also be granted—
for the studies which may not be closely or directly connected with the work of a railway servant, but which are capable of widening his mind in a manner likely to improve his abilities as a civil servant and to equip him better to collaborate with those employed in other branches of the public service.
i call the attention of the experts to the rule-2. Which says that any course is eligible for study leave if it is widening his mind. This rule is straightly for the benefit of the employee even if the course has no direct and close connection with the sphere of his duty.
Please suggest does LLB course does not comes under the purview of the this rule. And the Study leave was granted to me under Rule-2. And a memorandum communicating the approval of competent authority was issued in my favour to avail study leave.
The branch officer recommended study leave to prosecute LLB course in my favour under Rule-2 to which competent authority granted. I would like to add that there is a Law Section setup in the personnel branch on Indian Railways and i am working in the law section.
There are good promotional avenue in the Railways for the Law Graduates when compared to the normal promotional avenue to the clerical staff. There is also a legal branch on Indian Railways, in which the posts are filled from amoung the serving ministerial staff of all the branches having the qualificaiton of LLB and also from open market. Recently, RRB issued notification for filling up Chief Law Assistant posts also.
As per Schedule of Powers,
(a) accounts concurrence is required for Gazetted officers,
(b) whereas for Non-gazetted staff (Me), a certificate to the effect that the bond is executed by the employee is to be furnished and no accounts concurrence is required.
According to (b), branch officer has forwarded the bond executed by me to the accounts.
Then the accounts opined that ministerial staff are not eligible to prosecute LL.B Course and study leave cannot be granted.
Study leave rule is the part of the Railway Services Leave(Liberalised) Rules.
To my knowledge, any rule is inherent with Finance expenditure and the Railway Board made Rules taking into consideration all the aspects and accordingly prepared the Schedule of Powers to regulate the involvement of Finance Department, which cannot be overwhelmed.
Every rule made will not accruee benefit to the Railways on its expenditure. For instance, what benefit does the Government accrues from the child care leave that is being granted to female employees for 730 days and paying salary during that period. can accounts deny child care leave that it is waste of expenditure. Leave rules are prefebly to the benefit of employee likewise study leave to my knowledge. Further, I would like to add that, as the government is incurring expenditure that is the reason asking to execute bond for serving the government for 03 years after the expiry of the study leave.
Study leave provides counting of service, increment, leave. And I am the only earning member in the the family and cannot afford financial hardship using extraordinary leave.
Is the study leave only for Gazetted officers. Equal opportunity will be extended to all the classes of employees.
Railway Board under RTI furnished that no guidelines are available/issued by MPP Directorate in regard to points (a) details of courses of study that are regarded as having a direct and close connection with the sphere of duty for the various employees working as Administrative/ Ministerial Staff (Personnel Branch Staff) on Indian Railways and (b) to determine a particular course of study as useful to the employees or have a direct and close connection with sphere of his duty. As such, it is to the discretion of the competent authority granting study leave. However, any policy or rule made after this date can be made applicable to my case.
To my knowledge, the Study Leave rule emphasizes to encourage its employees to prosecute higher studies after entering into service for enhancement of skills and broaden their mind and to progress in career which inherit better service to the Administration, as an opportunity to the employees for their progression.
In absence of guidelines, how could Accounts draw a conclusion that study leave cannot be granted to prosecute LLB Course, when the competent authority granted study leave to prosecute LLB Course.
The Accounts informed that, recently, 2 SSE from Engineering Department, have completed B.Tech., which is directly close connection with the sphere of their duties and fulfilled the conditions of Appendix V of Esst. Code. In this case also no study leave has been sanctioned and they applied for LAP and completed their degree, which shows their predetermination of disallowing study leave to group-C employees. Further, the accounts opined that it will become a precedent in future for this type of study leave issues.
I have taken admission in the college on the strength of the study leave granted to me, paid fees, deposited certificates and the college started. My study leave starts from 10.11.2014. I am apprhending of my study leave getting cancelled due to accounts disagreement or keep the leave sanctioned in abeyance. I am loosing classes. The Accounts is disagreeing with the rule-2 of study leave rules of rly.board mentioned above. Is it permissible for accounts to overrule the Railway Board and draw conclusions to their fancies and indirectly advising to use LAP for completion of study.
In Government, no department fights from the benefit of employee. They blindly agrees to what the accounts opined in order to maintain relationship among the departmental officers. So, I am affraid of my study leave getting cancelled or diverted with abeyance order of department.
I request the experts to render guidience so that the I can prosecute my LLB course with study leave only and not under extraordinary leave, without foregoing the benefits provided by the Railway Board viz counting of service, increments, leave etc., which contributes to my pensionary benefits and promotional avenue.
Thanking You Sirs.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 05 November 2014
If you feel that nay rule is being mis-interpreted to your disadvantage you can have recourse to Rule 18(iv) of THE RAILWAY SERVANTS (DISCIPLINE & APPEAL) RULES, 1968
MUMTAZ
(Querist) 05 November 2014
Sir,
Rule 18(iv) of THE RAILWAY SERVANTS (DISCIPLINE & APPEAL) RULES, 1968 has nothing to do with the study leave. The DAR rules are meant for orders on DAR action.
Please go through the details posted by me and guide in the right perspective.
I humbly submit my heartful of thanks to Mr.Dingra Sir and all other experts.
And request all the experts to guide me for which act of kindness, I shall be grateful to you Sir
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 05 November 2014
the said rule 18(iv) is replica of rule 23(iv) of CCS(CC&A Rules. This rule can be invoked whenever and employees fells that rules are mis-interpreted to the disadvantage of Govt servant. If you fee that the rules relating to study leave are being misinterpreted then he can have recourse to the same. I have even seen Vigilance officers of railways taking benefit of the same.
Yours is not the first case.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 05 November 2014
You have now given the following facts :-
(i) you hold post of OS.
(ii) you are in HR deptt
(iii) your job content relates to legal work
(iv) the legal qualification enhances your promotion prospects.
I do not know what prevented you from disclosing these facts earlier
These newly intimated facts do prima-facie give indication that perhaps the LLB qualification in your circumstances may fit into the leave rules frame work.
But the following facts just cannot be ignored:-
(i) you got information through RTI that no such policy decision has been taken by Rly Bd to cover LLB into the ambit of leave rues as far as your designation and posting is concerned.
(ii) You are not able to quote precedent.
(iii) Although your leave is not cancelled still you are not indicating whether any correspondence is taking place between personnel and accounts in this matter.
(iv) if your leave sanctioning authority if not able to convince the accounts they have a justification not to release leave salary during study leave.
(v) out of this 161 year old organisation which is largest employer of India, you could not generate any precedence similar to your case despite the fact that you know RTI channel.
(v) You know that none will fight to accounts yet you are not ready to take shelter Rule 18(iv) of THE RAILWAY SERVANTS (DISCIPLINE & APPEAL) RULES, 1968. If recourse is taken then the Appellate Authority will have to pass speaking orders under his own signature as to whether your contentions correct or not.
You have not stated whether at all any presentation has been submitted by you. Without submitting this representation you cannot go to court (as advised by experts other than me).
MUMTAZ
(Querist) 05 November 2014
Sir,
The accounts is saying that allowing study leave will become a precedent to other cases of similar issues.
There are no cases of study leave granted to Group-C employees at this place.
Basing on the communication happening between the two departments only, i have posted this query for guidance as my study leave starts by 10.11.2014. During which time apprehending of adversity.
Till now cancellation letter was not issued. On my application of study leave, the study leave was granted by the leave sanctioning authority. They may now act in contradiction due to unwarranted interference of Accounts with personal perception and presumptions.
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 05 November 2014
The given facts reveal that the Administrativ e prerogatives satisfy the pre-requisites for the sanction of study leave,and it is complete.Now you can proceed with your study unmindful of the objections by the Accounts wing.It is an internal affair which could be thrusted on you.You seek relief with the administrative wing on the afternoon of 09-11-2014 duly marking copies to the higher officals concerned with the Administration.Rest could be met in an appropriate manner in accordance with the developments later.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 05 November 2014
Now you have given new facts :-
(i) accounts deptt is objecting this leave merely as a precedence. in the particular division.
(ii) this cse will become precedence
(iii) No Gp-C employee have availed any study leave.
Before I react further Please confirm
(I)Whether I am correct to judge these facts.
(II) whether there is any other ground given by accounts deptt to refuse leave.
(III0 You say that no leave cancellation memo is issued. Whether sanction memo has been received.
Anirudh
(Expert) 05 November 2014
Dear Mr. Sudhir,
You have said: "I ....happen to be the only member on this thread asserting that she is not entitled."
I think you have not noted my post to the following effect:
"Dear Mumtaz,
Please indicate, what is your current sphere of duty and how the proposed LL.B. course is having a direct and close connection with the sphere of your duty."
I have never come across a case where a non-UPSC appointed officer had ever been granted any Study Leave in the entire Govt. of India. The study rule provisions, in spite of having been not happily drafted as it gives lot of scope for interpretation in the way in which the leave sanctioning authority has done in the instant case, has always been thought to be a provision meant for Direct Recruit Management Cadre officers.
I think internal correspondence between Accounts Wing and the Leave Sanctioning Authority may be going on. I am quite sure, the authorities will issue leave cancellation Memo (in case leave sanctioning order had been issued earlier) before 8.11.2014 (Friday) the last working of the week and will also ensure that they get proper acknowledgement from Mumtaz.
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 05 November 2014
Dear Anirudh,Your subjective apprehensions on the issue is genuine and your experiences have lead you to express as such.But,the plight of queryist seems at dilemma.Whatever might be the precedences,he ought to have been given definite answer,which has already been given by sanction of leave applied.If at all the sanction accorded oversighting the rules,let it be an exempted case,and clearcut decisions be taken for future guidance.Let us be prospective based on the prevailing facts.
Anirudh
(Expert) 05 November 2014
Dear Mr. Gabriel,
As you rightly said, we can go on discuss and debate the issue here. The real sufferer is the Querist. If the querist is made to believe that she is entitled to study leave and proceed, she will come to know that her salary is not getting paid only after a month! She will be able to approach the CAT only then and not before that. But if she is cautioned that it is not a clear cut of entitlement / eligibility, she will be watchful, get it doubly checked in her organization and take an informed choice either way - either to go ahead and meet the eventualities or to get resigned to the fact that she is not entitled to study leave and therefore will not be able to pursue her LL.B. course by attending regular daily college.
Just because one leave sanctioning authority has sanctioned the leave (whether with the complete knowledge about the provisions or not) does not mean that Accounts Section cannot take up the issue, especially when the Accounts Section has received any communication to that effect i.e. Leave Sanctioning Memo etc. If the Accounts Section does not take up the issue then the blame will be put on Accounts Section. Therefore, it should not be viewed as though the Accounts Section is creating any hindrance or hurdle in the matter.
If she goes ahead and remits fees etc., then again that will be a problem and she may not be able to get refund of the amounts paid!
The question of treating her case as an 'isolated instance and therefore to be treated as an exception/exempted case' may not at all arise, as within a short period of time, the Administration has to take a decision one way or the other.
As an Advocate, if she happens to be my client, I shall advise caution.
MUMTAZ
(Querist) 05 November 2014
Sir,
i would like to mention two points;-
1. Study leave may also be granted—
for the studies which may not be closely or directly connected with the work of a railway servant, but which are capable of widening his mind in a manner likely to improve his abilities as a civil servant and to equip him better to collaborate with those employed in other branches of the public service.
As per the above rule, any course is eligible for study leave. But accounts branch says that ministerial staff are not eligible for prosecuting LLB course on study leave.
2. The competent authority to grant study leave is DRM but not accounts as per Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol.I
3. Every Govt.Section has Schedule of Powers which regulates the involvement of Accounts branch. AS per which finance concurrence is not required.
4. On the strength of the study leave sanctioned memo I have taken admission. Till now my leave is not cancelled.
5. From the letter correspondence between the departments, the Accounts branch states that (2) they have not allowed study leave for 02 employees even they are found eligible as per Study Leave Rules and the employees have availed their own leave and completed the course. (2) allowing study leave in my case will become precedence for the future cases.
Please guide me if the leave is cancelled, what is best course of action, i have to take.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 05 November 2014
agreeing with Mr Anirudh I will refer to the following asertion s
"2. The competent authority to grant study leave is DRM but not accounts as per Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol.I
3. Every Govt.Section has Schedule of Powers which regulates the involvement of Accounts branch. AS per which finance concurrence is not required. "
But the accounts have certainly a role to see that the expenditure is (i) authorized (ii) as well as admissible.
They believe (right or wrong) that study leave is not admissible and and may not be paying leave salary to you, til the leave sanction memo is amended to a leave which they believe to be admissible.
You have to understand their role in Govt functioning.
You just cannot believe them at par with Munim of a Bania shop.
Further your cause of action starts when either leave is cancelled (before or after commencement) or leave salary is topped.
You can utilise the time to use RTI to find a precedent. This is 161 year old organiation
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 05 November 2014
"As per the above rule, any course is eligible for study leave. But accounts branch says that ministerial staff are not eligible for prosecuting LLB course on study leave."
Nothing unique in railways. Ministerial staff in no deptt gets study leave for completing LLB.
MUMTAZ
(Querist) 06 November 2014
Sir,
Study leave is placed under Railway Services (liberalised) rules, 1949. Leave is not a right but it is to the benefit of the employee. Leave Rules incur expenditure on Railways and it is to the benefit of employees.
the Child Care Leave given to female employees for 730 days produce no benefit to the Government, which is not disallowed or interfered by the Accounts because it is binding obligation to perform duties in conformity with the Railway Board Rules and SOP, but not against to the statutory rules.
The Study Leave rule emphasizes to encourage its employees to prosecute higher studies after entering into service for enhancement of skills and broaden their mind and abilities by providing an opportunity for their progression in career which inherit better service to the Government. And it is a mutual benefit to the Government and to the employee.
Ministerial staff in no deptt. gets study leave for completing LLB is not a statute. It is not unconstitutional or unlawful or unjust to deny the benefit to the employee provided by Railway Board.
my query is for guidance how to resolve my problem and how to avail the benefit of study leave.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 06 November 2014
I you feel injustice is being done the move further. You have been guided well.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 06 November 2014
Lots is added/ nothing more to add.
Dept rule will prevail.
Guest
(Expert) 06 November 2014
Mr. Sudhir,
If someone analyses your posts there are plenty of contradictions in your own views indicating somewhere that you don’t think the official is eligible for taking up LLB course because the Accounts Department says so and sometimes you endorse the rules, as you state yourself, “As per the above rule, any course is eligible for study leave,” and then on the contrary add “But accounts branch says that ministerial staff are not eligible for prosecuting LLB course on study leave.” That clearly pinpoints that you are not definite on your own stand. You also believe that SAS is a sacred exam and believe that whatever they say (right or wrong) is always correct, may that be against the provisions of rules, as you stated, “They believe (right or wrong) that study leave is not admissible and may not be paying leave salary to you.” A question arises, if the SAS is considered as a sacred qualifying exam, why they are posted on a very junior position, like Junior Accountant or Jr. Accounts Officer, after qualifying the exam and why the Accounts & Finance candidates of Allied Cadres selected by the UPSC are posted in different departments directly as Class-I (Group-A) Officers, when they compete only the objective type examinations of general knowledge (not accounts rules) and graduation level subjects? More so, the Allied Cadre candidates have to be trained for full two years at the huge cost of the departments, besides paying their salaries also, when they don’t do any practical work in the departments for that induction training period. So, why the sacred SAS qualified personnel are not posted higher in rank than the direct recruits of Class-I Officers in Allied (Accounts & Finance) Cadres in different departments?
However, from your posts it can well be apprehended that either you belong to the promotee family of SAS or, even in the capacity of a Dy. Director, don’t have the courage to oppose even the wrong decisions of the Accounts Department.
So, it would be futile, if the discussion continues merely on theoretical basis. AS SUCH, I WOULD LIKE TO CITE SOME PRACTICAL EXAMPLES, WHICH I ENCOUNTERED IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, WHERE ACCOUNTS & FINANCE, SAS QUALIFIED, EVEN ALLIED CADRES FAILED TO MISINTERPRET THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OR WERE BLANK IN KNOWLEDGE. These are as follows:
1) In the year 1964 in one department, a medical bill of an employee for his severe illness was objected to by the Audit with the plea that the patient did not visit AMA’s consulting room, as AMA had to visit patient’s home due to severity of illness. The irony of the case was that AMA’s fee was not charged, as being Government dispensary, no fee was paid to the AMA. Recovery was therefore affected from his pay by the Accounts Department in compliance with the audit objection. The official contacted me for solution. While the Circle Head and the Head of the Department were duly authorized to regularize the expenditure, his representations were rejected at both the levels. Ultimately, representation was addressed to the Director Audit with the challenge that he himself should visit the village and suggest how the patient could be transported to AMA’s consulting room in the absence of any arrangement for transportation in the village. The Director had to withdraw the objection resulting in to refund of the recovered amount.
2) In the year 1971, in Postal Department, I was shown three wrong audit objections raised by the inspecting Audit Party and the Audit Superintendent did not budge even slightly to settle such objections when rules were quoted in reply. On visit of the Audit Officer to finalise the list of objections and Audit Report, the in-charge of the unit took me with him to discuss the matter with the Audit Officer. Audit Officer was quite convinced and when he asked his Audit Superintendent, why the objections have not been treated as settled, he just replied that during the whole of inspection period, only those three objections were raised by him and how he would justify his position if the objections were withdrawn.
3) In the same department in another office, after replying two of the audit memos on particular function of the office and finding that the same were filled up with fake objections, the rest 7-8 audit memos were returned for review of the audit party by the in-charge with remarks on the third memo that the auditor has raise objections merely for objection sake and he had not cared for his own time as well as his (in-charge) precious time. The memos had to be taken back after due deliberations when the later visiting Audit Officer was convinced that the record contained even full description of accounting adjustments, etc., according to rules.
4) In the year 1994, a Director cum Internal Financial Advisor of the Allied Cadre asked me on phone, whether she could grant honorarium of Rs.2500 to each invigilator and supervising officer of a departmental exam, when her department’s fixed rates during those days were Rs.150 for invigilator and Rs.250 for a supervising officer.
5) In one department I saw a case where authorities sanctioned study leave to one JAG level Director of Finance & Accounts Department for undertaking two years MA (History) course, when that course could neither add to her Finance & Accounts skills, nor could be beneficial to her department in any way.
6) Leaving aside several other examples, just today’s case, I would like to quote now. Haryana Power Generation Corporation (HPGCL), a State PSU, rejected the case of allowing benefit of his 8 years of his past Government service to one of its employee, prior to introduction of new pension scheme (NPS) to get benefit of old pension scheme and had been compelling him to submit PRAN to get enrolled in the new pension scheme, as the Finance Department Corporation had stated that the employee was not entitled for old pension scheme. To put pressure on him his salary has been stopped from the month of July 2014. Contrary to that the organisation had already allowed the benefit of old pension scheme to at least 12 other recruits.
SO, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IF THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT DISAGREES TO ANY PROPOSAL AGAINST THE RULES OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE PRESCRIBED RULES GET DEFUNCT AND AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND TO YIELD BECAUSE THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT HAS OBJECTED TO? So far as Accounts Department is concerned, that is in no way authorised to curtail the delegated authority of any competent authority. They can raise objection only when they find that rules and regulations are not observed by the sanctioning authority. In no way they are authorised to create hurdles in day to day administration. AS A GOVERNMENT OFFICER, YOU MUST KNOW THAT EVEN IN CASE OF ANY IRREGULARITY, SOME AUTHORITIES ARE AUTHORITIES ARE EMPOWERED EVEN TO REGULARISE THE CASES EX-POST FACTO.
SO, IF YOU DON’T HAVE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OR THE COURAGE TO FACE THE ACCOUNTS/ AUDIT DEPARTMENT, YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TRIED TO MISLEAD THE QUERIST, MERELY BECAUSE THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT HAS NOT APPROVED THAT. So far as provisions of rules & regulations of Government are concerned, discrimination should never be encouraged with any employee, may he be of ministerial cadres or accounts cadre.
With reference to your contention, "course which is not approved by the deptt and in view of the audit is not admissible, your assumption is wrong, as courses are not approved by any department, rather at the time of sanction, it is seen by the competent leave sanctioning authority, whether the proposed course will add to the skills of the employee to improve his performance in the department or not. Moreover, I believe that even audit people work on the basis of their theoretical knowledge and do not have any practical knowledge of field working. They are more prone to misinterpretation of rules and regulations, as compared to the field staff, who have practical knowledge of implications of rules and regulations. In one department, I saw one Officer saying, "you show me the face, I show you the rule." When asked what he intended to say by that, he clearly told that if he had to favour a person, he would interpret the rule in his favour, while for some other the same rule can be interpreted and applied adversely.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 06 November 2014
Account deptt are not god. They can also err in discharge of their functions.
Let her go to court as advised by many experts.
Guest
(Expert) 06 November 2014
You could well have advised earlier for that instead of discouraging her time and again and making her afraid of losing the case by virtue of your blind support to the accounts department.
However, I yet believe that even without going to the court she can win her case internally with the department, if she takes up her case in an effective manner.
Accounts or Audit departments are neither over and above the provisions of the Rules framed by the Parliament of India, nor are vested with any power to overrule any correct decision taken in fulfillment of the Government's prescribed rules by virtue of their misinterpretation of rules or their egoistic approach. Rather, they are bound to ensure that the executive abides by the Government rules and work according to the provisions laid down in the prescribed rules and regulations.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 07 November 2014
I apologise 10 times to Mr Dhingra for having participating in this thread.
If Mr DShingra so desires I will start seeking his kind permission as to what should I advise.
She has earlier hidden vital information and later released.
The new facts reveled by her do indicate that some chance can be taken as she has stated that LLB enhances promotion prospects.
I am still not convinced that she has a very good case to go to court but placed in this situation she has no remedy.
She may convince the deptt though so far none of her counterpart in other. Deptt may take a policy decision on her initiative.
I am glad to learn
"Accounts or Audit departments are neither over and above the provisions of the Rules framed by the Parliament of India, nor are vested with any power to overrule any correct decision taken in fulfillment of the Government's prescribed rules "
I am happy that in the past (even without this enlightenment) I could win a case against interpretation of Audit deptt in my own case.
My good wishes.
Guest
(Expert) 07 November 2014
Mr. Sudhir,
I only wish, being an Officer of Government of India, you must possess positive attitude. Spirit of Rules is not nagative towards the employees of the Government of India, rather it is only the negative attitude of some officers in each department that does not allow the employees to avail the benefit of rules. No employee is insincere from their inception in any Government office, only the negative attitude of officers make them insincere and narrow minded.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 07 November 2014
my being positive or negative in this case is not going to change the facts of the case.
Guest
(Expert) 07 November 2014
Facts lie prominently in the rules, which are common for all classes of employees and do not favour or discriminate between cadres. Only the negative attitude of Officers at the helm of affairs become the cause of discrimination between the classes of employees, e.g, direct recruits vs. promotees, Gazetted vs. Non-gazetted, Accounts & Finance/ Administrative vs. Engineers/ generalists/ field staff, etc.
MUMTAZ
(Querist) 12 November 2014
Sir,
I express my thanks to all the experts.
Expecially I am very grateful to Mr.P.S.Dingra Sir for his kind guidance and analysation.
I would like to mention to Mr.Sudhir Kumar that Study Leave is a leave rule and it is for all the employees, so the courses are prescribed. further any policy after sanctioning the leave cannot apply to the case. Leave Rules are to the benefit of the employee in any organisation. All Leave Rules incurrs expenditure. What is the beneift of Child Care Leave to the Government. Like wise study leave is also one the leave. Accounts involvement in Leaves to Group-C & D employees is zero as per Schedule of Powers of that Organisation. Can accounts deny LAP,CL,ML, PL,CCL and other leaves stating that there is no benefit to Government.
From this thread, I came to know you are also an officer in higher stature, Please see in the broader perspective and help your employees.
Guest
(Expert) 12 November 2014
If this Thread could Continue at least For few more days it will be Trend Setter Please.
Guest
(Expert) 12 November 2014
Thanks for your appreciation.
I can only add, social justice is the sole responsibility of the Government to be enforced through its appointed Officers/ Executives. If they become unsocial and discriminate between classes of their own employees, who else can assure implementation of constitutional right to equality?
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 12 November 2014
Child Care Leave -
accounts deptt can deny leave salary to any employee if :-
(i) the applicant is not a woman; or if
(ii) the said woman does not have child below 18 year of age; or if
(iii) maximum CCL has already been availed.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 12 November 2014
Now coming to Study leave;
No doubt the study leave is beneficial to the organisation as well as to the employee. That is the reason that a bond of three years service is executed and also that failure to serve three years render employee to refund all leave salary.
I also wish that your should get this leave but my sympathy is not purely sentimental.
In the first blog you did not mention your designation, responsibility and also the enhanced chances of promotion. So initially I felt the possibility to be zero.
I know that the leave rules (atleast for Study Leave) do not discriminate between level and classification of the employee. But at the same time I am not finding any precedent to refute observation of Mr Anirudh that so far no Gp-C employee has been seen by him getting this leave. But at the same I am not able to agree the same despite the best regard I am having for him.
Mr Dhingra has quoted some examples in different organisations.
You have developed such a prejudice against me that you will not consider any suggestion for the simple reason that it has been given by me. Does not matter how much loss you may suffer.
The sole hurdle in you rcase is that the accounts deptt is not convicted that such leave is ADMISSIBLE though the same has been AUTHORISED by the competent levee sanctioning authority.
There are multiple solutions
OPTION-I
Leave sanctioning authority who having satisfied that the course is of definite advantage to the railways, has exercised the discretion to sanction leave. The administration should be able to press rightness of the decision and remove the deadlock with accounts.
However that does not seem to happen as the Govt has a culture of not arguing with accounts persons.
OPTION –II
You should be able to come forward and argue with the higher officers of the accounts deptt. Such decision may not have been taken at very senior level and the deciding authority may not even by gazetted.
However, the audit and accounts deptt has a tendancy not to agree even if the decision may be 100% wrong.
But the option is worth a try as the senior officers of accounts are either very seasoned or have come through a ardours selection.
OPTION –III
You are convinced that rules are being misinterpreted to your disadvantage which affect your pay and allowances.
I had referred to If you feel that nay rule is being mis-interpreted to your disadvantage you can have recourse to Rule 18(iv) of THE RAILWAY SERVANTS (DISCIPLINE & APPEAL) RULES, 1968
But your interpretation is that
Rule 18(iv) of THE RAILWAY SERVANTS (DISCIPLINE & APPEAL) RULES, 1968 has nothing to do with the study leave. The DAR rules are meant for orders on DAR action.
On the contrary this rule comes to force everywhere where rules are misinterpreted to the disadvantage of employee
Rarely Govt servants take benefit of the same. But the rule is there
In this process your accounts persons will have to convince the Appellate Authority (who in your case may not be less than DRM) regarding correctness of the stand. The Appellate Authority will have to pass speaking order under his signature and you also have a right to be heard in person.
I have not advised this out of air. The rules reads as under
18. Orders against which appeal lies - Subject to the provisions of Rule 17, a Railway servant may prefer an appeal against all or any of the following orders, namely:-
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv) an order which –
(a) denies or varies to his disadvantage his pay, allowances, pension, Provident Fund benefits, service gratuity or other conditions of service as regulate d by rules or by agreement; or
(b) interprets to his disadvantage the provisions of any such rule or agreement;
I have myself placed in such deadlock taken recourse to identical provisions of CCS(CCA&) Rules when administration was not able to advise correctness of the decision.
OPTION –IV
If you have already submitted written representation but has not yet been replied the you can move to CAT.
You can also plead for interim relief of non-interruption of leave salary as this amounts o irreparable loss.
As you have stated that accounts deptt is refusing to cooperate that they do not want to have any precedent. Such argument if not supported by rule position in their favour do not hold good.
Bu the cause of action will start from the date when you are conveyed in writing regarding cancellation of leave or accounts deptt stick to their stand and stop leave salary.
OPTION-V
You can also (as advised by me earlier) exercise RTI and get information whether in any zone at any time anyone has been granted this leave under similar circumstance for undergoing sale or similar course. This case can be quoted before administrative, accounts as well as before court.
There are other options also but these are merely punitive and your aim at present is to get what you feel is your right.
Anirudh
(Expert) 12 November 2014
Dear Mumtaz,
Pl. indicate what has happened to the exchange of notings between Accounts Wing and your leave sanctioning authority.
Whether it has attained finality?
Whether you got relieved on Study Leave?
MUMTAZ
(Querist) 12 November 2014
Sir,
CCL for 730 days for women, no benefit to Government and Accounts is not interfering of expenditure incurred on Child Care Leave and allowing. They have to view all the Leave rules on one fottage if they are viewing of incurring Railway expenditure.
I have taken admission on the strength of study leave granted to me by DRM. My department permitted to avail study leave from 10.11.2014 and I am attending classes availing study leave. The internal correspondence between Accounts and my department is going on.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 13 November 2014
SO as long as the accounts deptt does not interrupt your leave salary, you have no grievance worth complaining.
Their observations conveyed to you verbally has no consequence.
All the option suggested above (though suggested by unthanked person like me) may be of use when grievance arises.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 13 November 2014
What is going on in this thread?
The author could successfully drag the learned experts in contradicting one another and passing unwarranted remarks.
First of all - the author did not come with full information, especially very vital information as to:
i) Whether sanction of study leave is advised to her in writing?
2) If advised, whether it is cancelled?
After prolonged altercations among the learned experts she started posting one by one and made the experts to waste their valuable time which could have spent in productive way. If some expert is so interested to indulge in arguments, they could have advised the author to post it in the forum for wider discussion.
Now she came with full facts, my advice is
i) as she is granted study leave for 2 years and infromed accordingly, she need not bother about the internal correspondence until the sanctioned leave is cancelled.
2) When the cancellation is not communicated before her relieving, she can ignore all other things and join in the course.
3) Already 9th November is over.
She did not bother to post the present situation, whether she was relieved or not?
If any problem comes by way of advising the cancellation in writing, it has to be tackled at that time instead of assuming the consequences.
If she is apprehensive that her salary will held up, she should be prepared for such consequences. Anyway once the sanction is communicated, once she is relieved, once she has joined in the course, as far as she is concerned the matter is over. If at a later date cancellation is communicated, she can challenge it in the court of law or seek refund of the expenses and treating her absence as on duty.
MUMTAZ
(Querist) 13 November 2014
Mr.Sudhir Kumar sir, i express my thanks to you once again, i gained knowledge from your views
Mr.Jagga rao ji please see my post, 9 hours ago in which latest position is given in reply to Mr.Anirodh Sir question.
Though I am not communicated of cancellation as I am working in Deptt. i am seeing the things, so I posted.
I express my thanks to all the Experts for their valuable time.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 13 November 2014
You said
"Mr.Sudhir Kumar sir, i express my thanks to you once again, i gained knowledge from your views "
Kindly quote where you thanked me earlier. I only feel that you had been trying to teach me. I quote
“I would like to mention to Mr.Sudhir Kumar that Study Leave is a leave rule and it is for all the employees, so the courses are prescribed. further any policy after sanctioning the leave cannot apply to the case. Leave Rules are to the benefit of the employee in any organisation. All Leave Rules incurrs expenditure. What is the beneift of Child Care Leave to the Government. Like wise study leave is also one the leave.”
You perhaps imagined that I do not know the provisions.
You are free to express thanks to those who talk what you want to hear.
You had earlier discarded my idea of rule 18(iv) and I am sure you did so without reading (or atleast understanding) this rule although you claim to be dealing legal matters.
Though I have advised you ways of fighting but I am still not convinced that :-
(i) Leave has been granted
(ii) Leave is admissible.
I am still not sure whether at the time of your retirement some audit objection on leave salary for this period may not be pending.
You are not the first rail-man I have helped. I have even advised successfully to Vigilance Officers of Railway and earned their gratitude.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 13 November 2014
@Ms.Mumtaz
My questions are specific
i) Whether sanction of study leave is advised to her in writing?
2) If advised, whether it is cancelled?
3) Already 9th November is over.
She did not bother to post the present situation, whether she was relieved or not?
In your last post (as mentioned by you), there are no specific answers even now to these questions.
Are you relieved from duties to avail your study leave? Where is the answer.
You are leading the experts to assume the things and they have taken sides with arguments. This is not a court. This is only an advisory board. I personally feel that you should not have posted the facts in piece-meal. Mr.Sudheer Kumar's advice is only to bail you out from any future problems as you have mentioned that you have financial burdens. As I suggested, once you are relieved, your problem is over. But you may have to resort to legal redressal which is time consuming and financially burdensome. He wants you to bail out from these consequences. Any way, all the best to you.
MUMTAZ
(Querist) 13 November 2014
Mr.Sudhir Kumar Sir, I would like to mention that justice is not the stronger persons right.
Leave is granted in my case and I am availing leave. I am apprehending of getting cancelled.
Hypothical view of applicability of rule is different to that what rule says. I have putforth before the experts to know the applicability of the rule. Leave rules are wider in scope and is applicable for all. Because of wrong interpretation of rule i am apprehending of its cancellation. Hon'ble Courts will not go on the hypothetical view or wrong interpretation of rule.
If leave is not given to any person does not mean it becomes a rule and overrides the original rule, denying leave without a valid reason tantamounts to violation of rule. Accounts or Audit will come into picture only if the rule is not followed and the employee was given undue benefit.
The rule is clear, the accounts intention is that it becomes precedence in future that is the reason causing query. They would have said that rule is not followed straightly but not interpret rules overriding the established rule.
Study Leave not granted to ministerial staff till now to Group-C staff does not mean that it has become rule of not granting.
This is not to teach to you, my anxiety towards my problem for clear solution.
Thank you all.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 13 November 2014
I sincerely advise the author that she is sufficiently advised by experts and still she wishes to continue the thread, she has to post the same in forum for wider discussion instead of continuing the same here.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 13 November 2014
So far you did not get any clear solution ?
You have two sets of advisers here.
(1) One who believe that you are entitled for leave.
(2) who do not believe that you are entitled.
Both have advised to the best of their possibility.
Perhaps we are not as wise.
Guest
(Expert) 13 November 2014
Dear Mumtaz,
With reference to your statement, "Leave is granted in my case and I am availing leave. I am apprehending of getting cancelled," I may advise you not to get involved in to core and more controversy. If you apprehend leave is likely to be cancelled, better get stay order of the CAT, as rules support your entitlement of leave, not the baseless objection of the Accounts Department.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 13 November 2014
I believe that CAT doe snot pass preventive orders.
In case the leave is denied you can file OA and in para 9 thereof you can seek interim relief of stay of challanged orders.
MUMTAZ
(Querist) 13 November 2014
I am very much thankful to all the experts for their valuable guidance.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 14 November 2014
I again expre3ss my reservation against accepting thanks from the querist.
My view are not what she want to hear. My sympathy with her cannot change my views.
MUMTAZ
(Querist) 14 November 2014
Mr.Sudhir Kumar, I am not inclined to hear what i want, your view is incorrect.
You did not appreciate the rule and its scope and applicability and i understood that you appreciate the presumption, which varies from person to person. A prudent person will be judicious and view things in the light of rules with a great perception. A group of people appreciating a wrong will not become right.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 14 November 2014
Ms.Mumtaz
Please be within your limits.
You are not here teach the law to the experts.
If you are so sure about the rule, what is the need for you to approach this experts platform?
I already advised you the course of action. You are not interested in settling your issue. You are interested in countering the views of certain experts which is not your job. Please stop this thread.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 14 November 2014
You have been given ample positive advise so need not follow what less learned persons like me (and others) express.
Good luck.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 14 November 2014
Ms.Mumtaz,
If you know the rule, what made you to approach this LCI.
You are getting the free advise from us. Take the advise which suits you, and leave the other advises which you dont like.
If you differ from any expert, dont criticize them.
