Competent authority must decide pending study leave applications by a reasoned, speaking order within two weeks.

The applicant, an officer of the Indian Defence Service of Engineers posted as Director (E/M), appeared in the GATE examination on 14 February 2026 after obtaining permission from the competent authority.

After qualifying, he secured admission to the two-year M.Tech. course in Electrical Engineering at Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, for the 2026–2028 academic session, deposited the requisite fees, and joined the course commencing on 12 August 2026.

He submitted an application for study leave on 9 April 2026 under Rule 50 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, but no decision had been communicated to him by the time of filing the OA.

The respondents stated that the applicant’s case was under active consideration and that his GATE score remained valid until 31 March 2029, thereby reducing any immediate prejudice from delay.

The applicant sought a direction for sanction of study leave and consequential relief.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending study-leave application under Rule 50 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972.

Whether the Tribunal should itself direct sanction of study leave for the applicant’s M.Tech. course, or leave the grant of such leave to the competent authority.

The Tribunal applied Rule 50 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which governs the grant of study leave to eligible government servants for approved higher studies.

The Tribunal also applied the administrative-law principle that a pending representation or statutory application must be considered by the competent authority and decided through a reasoned and speaking order within a reasonable time.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The applicant’s study-leave application had remained undecided despite the commencement of the academic course, creating a need for prompt administrative consideration.

However, the Tribunal did not determine the applicant’s substantive entitlement to study leave or direct its grant.

It noted the respondents’ submission that the applicant’s GATE score was valid until 31 March 2029 and recorded their assurance that the matter was actively being considered.

Balancing the applicant’s concern regarding delay with the respondents’ authority to decide the application, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to consider the application dated 9 April 2026 and pass a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks.

The decision was to be communicated to the applicant forthwith.

The Tribunal did not itself sanction the study leave, and there was no order as to costs.