2009 INSC 1362
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                               State of Punjab

                                                      Vs.

                                           Sanjay Kumar Bansal

                                           C.A.No.4532 of 2009

                                   (S.H. Kapadia and Aftab Alam JJ.)

                                                  16.07.2009

                                                   ORDER

S.H.Kapadia, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. 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 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.

1  SpotLaw
3. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The Civil
Appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs.

2  SpotLaw