Haryana Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Rajeev Arora has asked the State Police Chief to ‘clarify the delay’ in sending an IGP Y Puran Kumar’s request for earned leave due which the latter was “forced” to cancel a visit to his hometown of Telangana.
“You are requested to clarify the reason for the delay in sending the request of 19.01.2022 regarding 05 days of vacation acquired for the period from 07.02. 2022 to 11.02.2022 submitted by Sh. Y Puran Kumar, IPS, IG / HAP, Madhuban which was transmitted by you by letter dated 24.01.2022 to this office,” read a recent communication from the Ministry of Home Affairs, on behalf of the Additional Chief Secretary, to DGP PK Agrawal
Earlier, Kumar had written to Chief Secretary Sanjeev Kaushal on February 14 informing him that he was “forced” to cancel his visit to Secunderabad (Telangana). According to Kumar, on January 19, he requested earned leave as well as time off from the post from February 5 to February 13 to attend personal work. The officer claimed the leave was sanctioned on February 11 and communicated to him on February 12 “thwarting the very purpose for which said leave was taken”.
DGP Agrawal was not available for comment, but multiple sources within the police service, familiar with developments, say the request for clearance was forwarded to the government on January 24. They threw the ball back in government court, however, saying the police department received the furlough order on Feb. 11.
A government official previously told The Indian Express that ‘earned leave is not a right of a civil servant but a privilege’ and added that it was at the ‘government’s discretion whether or not to grant the leave “. The said official had asserted that earned leave in the case of IPS officers is sanctioned by the relevant Minister or Chief Minister
However, officials who believe that earned leave should not normally be denied, refer to a January 2010 order of the Ernakulam (Kerala) Bench of the Central Administrative Court. Referring to central government decisions, the bench had observed: “The position has been reviewed by the government in the light of the recommendation of the Fourth Wages Commission regarding the increase in the ceiling for the accumulation of accrued leave from 180 days to 240 days. While accepting the recommendations, the Cabinet observed that earned leave should not normally be denied to any employee, particularly in the last 10 years of his or her career, so that accruals of earned leave beyond 180 days would not normally do not occur. Leave sanctioning authorities are therefore urged to ensure that earned leave is not habitually denied to an employee. »
The CAT further observed: “A staff member cannot request leave as of right under Rule 7(1). This does not confer any unbridled and arbitrary power on the sanctioning authority to deny permission at will. Only in the requirements of the public service… the authority (may) refuse the leave. It is up to this authority to modify the nature of the leave due and requested only at the written request of the State employees. In this case, Respondent #2 ignores Rule 7(2) of the SCC Leave Rules. The ruling government of India is such as the government. staff should be encouraged to take regular leave. The leave must not be refused during the last ten years of service. Rule 7(1) prevents employees from evading their responsibilities by resorting to leave: it does not authorize the leave authority to refuse leave at will or to use it as an instrument of torture.