No. of Casual Leaves After Enjoying Maternity Leave

Ok! If that 4-month period is excluded from service for availing of EOL without pay, why can’t all the 14 CLs be taken in the remaining 8 months of valid service? Why 10 CLs will be granted for remaining 8 months? Why the other 6 CLs be seized? What is the rule for month-wise sharing of CLs as shown by dear Bro som? What is the rule governing CL of employees? Dear friends, I have not got the satisfactory clarifications as it is not justified by referring to appropriate rules! I am waiting and waiting to hear from both of you – 10Moy dada & Som Bro!

Dear 10Moy dada,
If it is the case in central govt. services, there is scope to grant part or all of the CLs to the employee subject to the discretion of the authority. In terms of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No.6/3/59-Estt.(A), dated 23rd December, 1959
“Persons who join Government service in the middle of the year, can be allowed to avail of casual leave proportionately or the full maximum period in a year, at the discretion of the authority competent to sanction the leave.”
So, when the employee joins on the 10th Nov. in a year, there is, of course, scope to grant all the CLs in the remaining part of the year, if authority considers it favourably in compliance with the demand of the situation.
Again, according to the Govt. of India, DP&AR O.M. No.28034/3/82-Estt.(A), dated 5th March, 1982
“If a Government servant having no casual leave to his credit comes late without sufficient justification and the administrative authority is not prepared to condone the late coming but does not at the same time propose to take disciplinary action, it may inform the Government servant that he will be treated as on unauthorized absence for the day on which he has come late and leave it to the Government servant himself either to fall the consequences of unauthorized absence or apply for earned leave or any other kind of leave due to admissible for the entire day and sanction the leave.”
With reference to the teacher in question, you see the above situation when an employee is under compulsion to take ELs/ any other kind of leave because of non-availability of CLs to his credit (!). Now you think, the authority has granted 10 CLs in the remaining 8 months and seized 4 CLs. The said employee remains absent from office for 4 days without any intimation and, on return to office, he is forced to take EL/other leaves instead of those 4 CLs to avoid unauthorized absence. Is it justified? If he applies for those 4 CLs the authority would be in problem to refuse him as the 4 CLs are still there to his credit. Indeed, the authority has the discretionary power to allow or not to allow all the CLs to him but, there should be some logical base in his “discretion”, otherwise it would become “arbitrary” which is bad in the eye of law. So, realizing the merit of the situation, remaining 4 CLs can also be logically granted instead of 4 ELs to benefit the employee.
Therefore, I think all the 14 CLs can also be allowed to the employee in the remaining 8 months. Even all the 14 CLs may be allowed in the remaining period 11th Nov. – 31st Dec. when he joins service on the 10th Nov in your case, depending upon the situation. No harm in it! I think, there is no hard and fast rule to show that the employee can never be permitted to take all the CLs in this situation.
Consider yourself as a boss in a govt. office, who has granted 10 CLs instead of 14 to his subordinate in the case under reference. Now, if anyone seeks from you the copy of the relevant rules in support of your decision under RTI Act, what to supply!
Kothai lekha aachey ekhetrey se 14 ta CL kokhonoi paabe na? Aponi jodi amar boss hoten ta holey “arbitrary decision” na ki “discretionary decision” niten? Ami ki khub bhool katha bollam, dada !
What is there in the state govt, rules? Any difference?

Good! Yes, there is difference between the Centre and State in respect of CL.
It is the guidelines first year of appointment in state service of a new entrant. If in any subsequent year he requires to take 4 months EOL as illustrated by you, whether same treatment (proportionate basis allocation of CLs) will be exercised for him!

I fear that the Rule has not been properly interpreted. Interruption/discontinuation of Service happens where there is absence not covered by grant of leave i.e. a ‘dies non’ and its not necessary that the period spent on Leave Without Pay is ‘dies non’. Please go through Rule 34 (3) of W.B.S.R. Part -I, as follows –
34 (3) Wilful absence from duty after expiry of the leave renders a Government employee liable to disciplinary action.
Note 1.—Treatment of wilful absence from duty.—Wilful absence from duty though not covered by leave does not entail loss of lien. The period of absence not covered by grant of leave shall have to be treated as ‘dies non’ for all purposes, viz., leave, increment and pension. Such absence without leave where it stands singly and not in continuation of any authorised leave of absence will constitute an interruption of service for the purpose of pension and unless pension sanctioning authority exercises his power under rule 35 of West Bengal Services (Death-Cum- Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 to treat the period as leave without pay, the entire past service stands forfeited.
Please go through the underlined statement. The methodology will not be followed for any leave in continuation of any authorised/granted leave, it applies when it stands singly. And needless to mention that ‘Leave Without Pay’, a sort of ‘Extra Ordinary Leave’ is not necessarily an unauthorised one. Circumstances arises where ‘Leave Without Pay’ is granted u/r 175 of W.B.S.R. Part-I. It does count towards the deffer of increment, but it does not stand for interruption of Service. Those who don’t have a ready access to W.B.S.R. Part -I, may go through the relevant rule i.e. 175 where provision have been made for grant of ‘Extra Ordinary Leave’. The text of the rule ibid is –
175. (1) Extraordinary leave may be granted to a Government employee in special circumstances:—
(a) when no other leave is admissible,
(b) when other leave is admissible, but the Government employee applies in writing for the grant of extraordinary leave.
(2) (a) Except in case of Government employee in permanent employ, no Government employee shall be granted extraordinary leave on any occasion in excess of three months.
(b) The Governor in view of the exceptional circumstances in the following cases may grant extraordinary leave in excess of the limit prescribed in clause (a):—
(i) six months, where the Government employee has completed one year’s continuous service on the date of expiry of the leave of the kind due and admissible under these rules, including three months extraordinary leave under clause (a) and his request for such leave is supported by a Medical certificate as required under these rules;
(ii) eighteen months, where the Government employee who has completed one year’s continuous service is undergoing treatment for—
(a) pulmonary tuberculosis or pleurisy of tubercular origin in a recognized sanatorium,
(b) tuberculosis of any other part of the body by a qualified tuberculosis specialist or a Medical Officer of Health,
(c) leprosy in a recognized leprosy institution by a Medical Officer of Health or a specialist in leprosy recognised as such by State Administrative Medical Officer concerned,
(d) cancer or for mental disease in an institution recognised for the treatment of such diseases or by a Medical Officer of Health or, a. specialist in such diseases recognised as such by the State Administrative Medical Officer concerned,
(iii) twenty-four months, where leave is required for the purpose of prosecuting studies certified to be in the public interest, provided the Government employee concerned has completed three year’s continuous service on the date of expiry of leave of the kind due and admissible under these rules including three months’ extraordinary leave under clause (a) of sub-rule (2).
(3) (a) Where a Government employee is granted extraordinary leave in terms of the provisions contained in sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-rule (2), he shall be required to execute a bond as in case of study leave under Appendix 5 undertaking to refund to the Government the actual amount of expenditure incurred by the Government during such leave plus that incurred by any other agency with interest thereon in the event of his not returning to duty on the expiry of such leave or quitting the service before a period of three years after return to duty.
(b) The bond shall be supported by sureties from two permanent Government employees having” a status comparable to or higher than that of the Government employee.
(4) Two spells of extraordinary leave, if intervened by any other kind of leave including maternity leave, shall be treated as one continuous spell of extraordinary leave for the purposes of sub-rule (2).
(5) The authority competent to grant leave may commute retrospectively periods of absence without leave into extraordinary leave.
Note 1.—The concession of extraordinary leave upto 18 months under sub-rule (2) (b) (ii) would be admissible also to a Government employee suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, who receives treatment at his residence under a Tuberculosis Specialist recognized as such by the State Administrative Medical Officer concerned and produces a certificate signed by that Specialist to the effect that he is under his treatment and that he has reasonable chances of recovery on the expiry of the leave recommended.
Note 2.—The expression “Medical Officer of Health” used in this rule shall include besides the Chief Medical Officer of Health, District Medical Officers of Health and the Presidency Surgeons.
Note 3.—The 3 months’ limit laid down in sub-rule (3) does not apply to cases where extraordinary leave is granted, to regularize the period of suspension under rule 72.
Note 4.—The power of commuting retrospectively the period, of absence without, leave into extraordinary leave under his rule is absolute and not subject to any condition. In other words such commutation is permissible even when other leave was admissible to the Government employee concerned, at the time of his absence without leave commenced.

‘Leave Without Pay’, covered by ‘Extra Ordinary Leave’ under the Leave admissible,is not supposed to be mixed up with ‘Absence without Leave’. ‘Leave Without Pay’ is basically a Leave and it is granted by the Leave Sanctioning Authority and it does not amount to a break of service entailing forfeiture of previous service. Rule regarding the Strike i.e. rule 3C (3C(b) to be more specific) of W.B.S.R. Part-I shows the difference. Let’s have a look what it specifies –
3C. Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in these rules or in other rules for the
time being in force:
(a) If any Government employee resorts to or in any way abets any form of strike for any period in connection with any matter pertaining to his service or the service of any other Government employee, be shall, in addition to being liable to such disciplinary action as may be taken against him in that connection, be deemed to be absent without leave during such period and shall not be entitled to draw any pay or allowance for that period,
(b)The authority empowered to grant leave may either commute retrospectively such period of absence without leave into extra-ordinary leave or may treat such period of absence without leave as amounting to a break in service entailing forfeiture of his previous service, and may pass orders accordingly.
I would like to add that it appears G.O. No. 4500-F. Calcutta, the 7th May, 1980 does not attract to the given case. The question was ‘How many casual leaves can one wb govt. aided school teacher take in a session ( Jan to Dec ) if she enjoyed six month maternity leave on the same session ?’ but the Order referred to here restricts itself only for the new entrants in the first year of service.
In the given case, period spent on ‘Maternity Leave’ is not ‘ absence without leave’ and therefore it does not amount to a break of service entailing forfeiture of service for the period. It, therefore, appears form the given information in the question, provided other conditions are not associated with the case (such as joining or termination of the concerned in the given calender year), C.L. is not to be calculated on pro-rata basis and the person concerned is entitled to get 14 C.L.s during the rest of the calender Year.

Oopz!!! Very sorry. Rectified.