Grant of specialized leave depends on strict compliance with service rules and official authorization for travel.

The applicant, a retired Manager of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), sought the restoration and encashment of various leaves—including joining leave, journey leave, quarantine leave, and casual leave—alleging that the respondents unauthorizedly deducted earned leave (EL) from his account

Following a transfer from ISP Burnpur to SSP Salem on June 30, 2020, the applicant joined duty at Salem on August 24, 2020

He claimed entitlement to 10 days of journey leave and 6 days of joining leave due to the 3,820 km distance between stations during the COVID-19 pandemic

Furthermore, the applicant sought quarantine leave for various periods between October 2020 and June 2021, asserting he had to travel to his hometown to collect property records for vigilance clearance

The respondents contested the claims, stating that the applicant had already applied for and been sanctioned EL/commuted leave for the transfer period, and that his subsequent quarantine leave requests did not meet company policy or were submitted after his retirement on June 30, 2021

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to journey and joining leave for the period of July 1, 2020, to July 18, 2020, despite conflicting claims regarding his location during that period

2. Whether the applicant was eligible for quarantine leave for multiple periods during the COVID-19 pandemic under the respondent's specific leave circulars

3. Whether the applicant’s claim for casual leave exceeding the prescribed limit was maintainable

The court applied the SAIL Leave Rules, which grant an employee six working days of joining time and one day of journey leave for every 400 kilometers of distance on transfer.

It further relied on Circular No. PL/CE/2020/220 dated June 2, 2020, which stipulates that quarantine leave (as commuted leave) is limited to 14 days and is only applicable if a dependent is infected without travel history; employees with travel history must use their own leave

Additionally, the court applied the company’s Casual Leave Rules, which restrict the grant of casual leave to a maximum of six days in a single spell

Regarding joining and journey leave, the Tribunal found the applicant's claim contradictory to his own pleadings in a previous litigation (O.A. No. 09/2021), where he asserted he remained on duty at ISP Burnpur until July 18, 2020, thereby negating the claim that he was in transit during that time

Concerning the quarantine leave requests for 2020, the Tribunal noted the applicant failed to provide material evidence to support his eligibility, while the respondents correctly applied commuted leave as per policy for home visits

For the 2021 quarantine claims, the Tribunal agreed with the respondents that the applicant’s journey to his hometown to collect property records was "unwarranted and unofficial," as such records were already available offline or could be handled online without travel

Finally, the Tribunal rejected the casual leave claims as they violated the internal rule prohibiting more than six days of CL in one spell

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to joining or journey leave for the disputed period, the quarantine leave requests did not meet the mandatory criteria of the 2020 Circular, and the casual leave requests exceeded the permissible duration under company rules

No order as to costs was made