Haryana Additional Chief Secretary (home) Rajeev Arora has asked the state police chief to “clarify the delay” in sending the request of an IGP Y Puran Kumar for earned leave due to which the latter was “was constrained” to cancel a visit to his hometown in Telangana. “You are requested to clarify the reason of delay to send the application dated 19.01.2022 regarding 05 days earned leave for the period from 07.02. 2022 to 11.02.2022 submitted by Sh. Y Puran Kumar, IPS, IG/HAP, Madhuban, which was forwarded by you vide letter dated 24.01.2022 to this office,” read a recent communication by the home department, on behalf of Additional Chief Secretary, to DGP PK Agrawal Earlier, Kumar had written to Chief Secretary Sanjeev Kaushal on February 14 informing him how he was “constrained” to cancel his visit to Secunderabad (Telangana). According to Kumar, on January 19, he had applied for earned leave along with station leave from February 5 to February 13 to attend some personal work. The officer claimed that the leave was sanctioned on February 11 and was communicated to him on February 12 “defeating the very purpose for which the said leave was taken”. DGP Agrawal was not available for comments but multiple sources in the police department, privy to the developments, claim that the leave application was forwarded to the government on January 24. They, however, put the ball in the government's court claiming that the police department received the leave sanction order on February 11. A government official had earlier told The Indian Express that “earned leave is not a right of an official but a privilege” and had added that it was the “discretion of the government whether to grant the leave or not”. The said official had claimed that the earned leave in case of IPS officers is sanctioned by the minister concerned or the Chief Minister However, the officials who believe that the earned leave should not ordinarily be denied, refer to a January 2010 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s Ernakulam (Kerala) Bench. While referring to the central government's decisions, the bench had observed: “The position has been reviewed by the Government in the light of the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission regarding increase in ceiling on earned leave accumulation from 180 days to 240 days. While accepting the recommendations, the Cabinet observed that earned leave should not ordinarily be denied to any employee, especially in the last 10 years of his career, so that earned leave accumulations beyond 180 days normally do not take place. The leave sanctioning authorities are, therefore, requested to ensure that the earned leave is not ordinarily denied to an employee.” The CAT had further observed: “A government servant cannot claim leave as of right as per Rule 7(1). This does not confer any unbridled and arbitrary power on the sanctioning authority to deny leave at its whims. Only in the exigencies of public service… the authority (can) refuse leave. It is not open to that authority to alter the kind of leave due and applied for except at the written request of the Government servants. In the instant case respondent No. 2 ignores Rule 7(2) of CCS Leave Rules. The Govt. of India decision is such that the Govt. servants are to be encouraged to take leave regularly. Leave is not to be denied during the last ten years of service. Rule 7 (1) restrains employees from evading responsibility by resorting to leave: it does not give a licence to the leave sanction authority to refuse leave at its whims and fancies or to use it as an instrument of torture.”
