[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
The Union Of India vs Rajendra Kumar Varma on 28 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010257872025
2025:GAU-AS:16279
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6729/2025
1.THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF RAILWAY, RAILWAY BOARD,
NEW DELHI 110001
2: THE GENERAL MANAGER
NF RAIILWAY, MALIGAON GUWAHATI 11
3: THE GENERAL MANAGER (P)
NF RAIILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI 11
4: THE DEPUTY CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER/ GAZETTE
NF RAIILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI 11
5: THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF MEDICAL DIRECTOR
NF RAIILWAY HEAD QUARTER MALIGAON GUWAHATI 1
VERSUS
RAJENDRA KUMAR VARMA
SO PREM KUMAR VARMA,
RO ROOM NO 8, OFFICERS REST HOUSE,
GUWAHATI RAILWAY STATION, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI 1
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Roy, Central Government Counsel.
: Mr. S. Borthakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H.K. Das, Advocate.
: Mr. N.K. Sarma, Advocate.
Page No.# 2/7
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
28.11.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Central Government
Counsel for the Railways/petitioners and Mr. H.K. Das, learned Advocate
for the sole respondent.
2. The respondent is serving the Railways as a Medical Officer. He
had earlier availed of 3(three) years' Study Leave for pursuing his Post
Graduate Course, viz. Doctor of Medicine (in short, "MD") in Medicine.
Later, he again required leave for 3(three) years for pursing the course of
Doctorate of Medicine (in short, "DM"), Neurology, which is a super
speciality course. The respondent also passed the National Eligibility-
cum-Entrance Test-Super Speciality (in short, "NEET") examination and
secured his admission in the medical college for pursuing such course.
However, his Study leave was rejected without assigning any reason by
the competent authority.
3. The respondent, thereafter, approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal (in short, "Tribunal"), Guwahati Bench, by filing
Original Application No.288/2025. The Tribunal, vide order dated
28.10.2025, on going through the Study Lave Rules and the Railway
Services (Liberalised Leave) Rules, 1949, directed the Railways/petitioners
to grant leave to the respondent for 3(three) years to pursue his course.
Page No.# 3/7
4. The Railways/petitioners have challenged the afore-noted
judgment of the Tribunal on various grounds, viz., that the respondent
had earlier availed of a leave of 3(three) years for pursuing higher studies
in MD (Medicine) while he was serving in the North-Central Railways. The
study leave does not prescribe for any second leave in the life of an
employee, be he a doctor serving in the Railway Medical Service. The
other reason for denying the leave, according to the petitioners, is that
the respondent has been facing a major penalty departmental
proceeding (vigilance case), which is still pending. The last of the reasons
urged before the Tribunal was that the Policy of the Railway Board is that
no contract doctor could be engaged in place of a doctor going on a
long study leave/EOL and in the assessment of the employers/petitioners,
the N.F. Railway would require the presence of the respondent as a
Medical Officer.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. In the application made by the respondent for seeking leave,
he had declared that he had never availed of Study leave in the past.
Prima facie, this statement is incorrect.
Admittedly, the respondent had taken Study leave for pursuing
his MD Course.
7. After having said that, we also reckon that perhaps the
respondent would have meant that he had never applied for leave for
pursuing DM Course, as a serving doctor in the Railways would always
know that the records are available with the employer and such false
statement, if intended, could not have passed unnoticed.
Page No.# 4/7
Nonetheless, we have examined the Study Leave Rules and
the Railway Services (Liberalised Leave) Rules, 1949.
8. A bare reading of the Study Leave Rules makes it clear that in
respect of Railway Medical Service Officer, Study Leave may be granted
for 36(thirty-six) months for acquiring Post Graduate qualification, subject
to the condition that the Railway Medical Service Officer, who has been
granted such leave, shall execute a bond under sub-Rule (4) of Rule 4 to
serve the Railways for a period of 8(eight) years after completion of the
study course.
9. The respondent had availed of this provision and has been
serving the Railways after completion of the Post Graduate course.
10. There is no provision in the Study Leave Rules for any further
leave on that account. Though, this has not been specifically stated, but
it could be gathered from the fact that the Rules provide the maximum
period of Study leave for 36 months.
11. When the Study Leave application of the respondent was
rejected, he applied for Extraordinary Leave under the Railway Services
(Liberalised Leave) Rules, 1949. These Rules provide that Extraordinary
Leave may be granted to a Railway servant in special circumstances,
which have been enumerated, most of which relate to medical reasons
(illness of different kinds). One of the grounds on which the Extraordinary
Leave could be availed of is for higher studies.
12. The relevant provision is prescribed in Rule 530(2)(d) which says
that 24 months leave could be given for the purposes of prosecuting
studies which is certified to be in public interest, provided that the
Page No.# 5/7
Railway Servant concerned has completed 3(three) years continuous
service on the expiry of the leave of the kind due and admissible under
the Rules, including 3(three) months Extraordinary Leave under Clause
(a).
A note appended to the Rules (Note 3) further provides that
there shall be no limit in case of permanent Railway servants, but all kinds
of leave together shall not exceed 5(five) years in one spell.
13. Thus, the respondent could be entitled for an Extraordinary
Leave over and above the Study leave, which he had already availed of
and which could be for a period not more than 5(five) years in one go.
14. It appears that the petitioners/employers did not actually
consider these aspects of the matter before rejecting the application of
leave of the respondent. Perhaps, the employer was piqued by the fact
that a false statement was made by the respondent in the application
for Study Leave and that the respondent was facing a domestic inquiry
on charges of corruption.
15. Mr. H.K. Das, learned Advocate for the respondent submits
that the Inquiry Officer has not found the allegations to be true though
the fact remains that the proceedings still remains pending.
16. We, therefore, are of the considered view, keeping in mind
that no person should be prevented from acquiring higher studies, but
also simultaneously keeping in mind that by a judicial order, an employer
cannot be compelled to grant leave to his employee, that the matter
ought to be remanded to the Railway authorities/petitioners for taking a
fresh call whether the respondent could be given leave for prosecuting
Page No.# 6/7
his D.M. Course in Neurology, for which he has put in a lot of toil and has
been successful in clearing the prestigious NEET examination and has also
secured admission in a medical college.
We order accordingly.
17. Thus, we dispose off this writ petition with a direction to the
respondent to file a fresh application before the authorities, stating
correct facts along with a copy of this order, within a period of one week
from today, whereafter the competent authorities dealing with such
matters, shall consider all aspects of the matter, without being prejudiced
by the fact that an erroneous statement was made in the earlier
application preferred by the respondent shall pass a reasoned order in
either case of rejecting or allowing such a request.
18. This Court expects that the employer/petitioners shall consider
the case of the respondent sympathetically, keeping in mind that higher
studies in the medical science by the respondent would be in public
interest as also in the interest of the Railways; provided the respondent is
ready to work with the Railways in future for the requisite number of years.
19. We have also been informed that the respondent has several
years of service left before he superannuates.
20. We have said all this for the reason that we have found that
such foibles on the part of the respondent is because of his intense desire
for higher studies. This shall also be taken into account by the Railway
authorities.
21. The decision in that regard must be taken within a period of
Page No.# 7/7
2(two) weeks from the date of filing of such fresh application by the
respondent.
22. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the
writ petition is disposed off accordingly.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
