KK!HRLeave is not a matter of right but is subject to exigencies of service. If somebody is very lax in applying for leave then a memo could be issued and it needs to be stressed that in spite of directions many times in the past it is still seen that leave application is never submitted in time. Indeed leave could be refused and the individual could be marked absent for such absence which would remain unauthorised. It is necessary to take action in such cases, lest others follow the wrong example.
From India, Mumbai
s-shyam-sundarOur Office follow CCS Rules being Central Govt.
If leave is rejected informing the officer's delay in submission does the officer have any room to confront or challenge legally.
On what Rule of CCS can we reject such leave to make it unauthorized absence.
From India, Shillong
KK!HRRule 7 of CCS Leave Rules reads as follows :
7. Right to leave
(1) Leave cannot be claimed as of right.
(2) When the exigencies of public service so require, leave of any kind may be refused or revoked by the authority competent to grant it, but it shall not be open to that authority to alter the kind of leave due and applied for except at the written request of the Government servant.
Using these powers the leave requested could be refused. once leave is refused, the absence becomes unauthorised.
The aggrieved employee could take up his grievance but it could be effectively replied stating the habit of not timely applying for leave and relying on Rule 7. The legal position is very clear that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right and exigencies of service is the prime consideration in granting/non-grant of leave. Habitual abrupt absence and non-submission of application even after reminder amounts to dereliction of duty and insubordination
From India, Mumbai
firstname.lastname@example.orgThe contents of the posting suggest that you are scared of this particular employee even though he has been indulging in willful mischief. Why? If the employee has not regularised his absence by applying for leave, as admissible, he is not entitled for the pay for the days/period he has remained absent. Onus rests with him applying for leave, that too, in advance except in the case of casual leave. If he has not applied for leave, no pay need to be paid for the periods of absence.
From India, Kochi