Public employers must arrange duty cover and cannot deny academic leave abroad on non-specific grounds.

The petitioner, a Professor in the Department of Paediatric Surgery at AIIMS Bhubaneswar, sought non-funded academic leave from 5 to 10 October 2026 to attend a WHO-invited workshop in Switzerland.

He applied through the e-HRMS portal on 28 July 2026; after the application remained pending, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which directed the authorities to decide it by 25 September 2026.

On that date, AIIMS rejected the request, citing the petitioner’s alleged failure to obtain prior permission, disclose relevant information, and arrange a colleague to take charge.

The petitioner challenged the CAT order and the subsequent refusal before the High Court.

Whether the authorities’ stated grounds justified refusing the petitioner leave and permission to attend the WHO workshop abroad.

Whether the High Court should decide the dispute despite the respondents’ submission that the petitioner should return to the CAT after the refusal order was issued.

The Court considered the Office Memorandum dated 27 July 2015 governing prior permission for Government servants to travel abroad while on leave.

It provides that such requests should be dealt with expeditiously; decisions should ordinarily be conveyed within 21 days of receipt of a complete application, and deficiencies should be notified within one week.

If no decision is communicated within 21 days of receipt of a complete application, the employee may assume permission has been granted.

Exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court also applied the principle that arranging an appropriate substitute during an employee’s temporary absence is the competent authority’s responsibility, not the employee’s alone.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s selection for the WHO workshop was undisputed, that the WHO would bear the travel expenses, and that seven other doctors were available in the department during his six-day absence.

It considered the refusal grounds—particularly the failure to secure a colleague to take charge and the alleged disclosure and visa-related lapses—insufficiently serious to justify denying permission.

The Court held that the authority, rather than the petitioner, was responsible for arranging cover, and found no plausible reason to refuse the request in the circumstances.

Given the short time before the scheduled workshop and the refusal issued during the writ proceedings, it declined to remit the matter to the CAT.

The High Court directed the opposite parties to grant and sanction the necessary leave and permission for the petitioner to attend the conference in Switzerland from 5 to 10 October 2026.