Legal entitlement to leave is with regard to leave which is authorised, like maternity leave or child care leave. However, extraordinary leave is not a matter of right, the Delhi High Court has said. Justice Valmiki Mehta has held that the “grant of extraordinary leave is not a matter of legal right and every employer, before granting extraordinary leave, has to balance various aspects, including the working requirement of the employer not being affected on account of leave sought by an employee”.
The court made the observation while dismissing the petition of a woman, appointed Assistant Director, Library, Reference, Research, Documentation and Information Service, against the order of her termination from service passed by the disciplinary authority of the Rajya Sabha secretariat.
The court in this case noted that of a total of approximately 10 years of service till December 2014, the woman had been on leave for 1,917 days — around 5½/6 years.
The woman had challenged her termination from service on account of her unauthorised absence, i.e remaining absent from duty without any leave being sanctioned after proceeding on maternity leave.
She had argued that unauthorised absence could not lead to automatic termination of services.
‘Recalcitrant employee’
The Rajya Sabha secretariat, on the other hand, contended that she was clearly a “recalcitrant employee”.
In the instant case, the woman had applied for maternity leave of 180 days from November, 2013. The maternity leave was granted to her with leave coming to an end on May 16, 2015. Claiming that she needed to look after the baby, she applied for extraordinary leave of another 180 days which was also granted.
Thereafter, claiming that she had no family support in India, she went to the U.K. to join her husband, and again sought extraordinary leave which was not granted.
But she did not rejoin duty despite being served office memorandum. She failed to appear for enquiry.
The Rajya Sabha secretariat told the court that the detailed report discussed all aspects, and evidence led to hold the petitioner guilty of unauthorised absence from duty, and conduct unbecoming of a government servant. “The present is a case of an employee wanting to do her duties at her own convenience, which cannot be permitted,” the court observed.
