1

IN THE 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

DR. SANJAY KUMAR BANSAL ...RESPONDENT(S)       

O R D E R

KAPADIA, J.

Leave granted.

The short 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.   

Special 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 of reasons.   

Even on the case of discrimination it is for the Administration/Management to  

take into account the contingencies which may arise in the course of  administration.  

The 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.

In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.  

The Civil Appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs.

....................J. [ S.H. KAPADIA ]

New Delhi, ....................J July 16, 2009 [ AFTAB ALAM ]

3

ITEM NO.10                  COURT NO.4                  SECTION IVB

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          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.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM

For Petitioner(s) Mr. H.M. Singh, Adv. Ms. Jasmeet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv.

                    Mr. Kuldip Singh,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. A.Venayagam Balan,Adv.

      UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                            O R D E R  

Leave granted. The Civil Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

         (S. Thapar)         PS to Registrar

(Madhu Saxena) Court Master

4

The signed reportable order is placed on the file.