HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 16357 of 2026 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3; Sri Surendra Upadhayay, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Kailash Prakash Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, and perused the record on board. 2. Instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs: "I. Issue a writ order, or directions in the nature of certiorari quashing the rejection order dated 04.09.2026 of sabbatical leave of the petitioner passed by Respondent No.-3 i.e. General Manager (Personnel Management Section) HR Wing vide email 'a system generated letter' Canara Bank. II. Issue a writ order, or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the directing the respondent General Manager (Personnel Management Section HR Wing Head Office Bengaluru) Canara Bank to approve the sabbatical leave of the petitioner for taking care of her 5 years old daughter." 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2026, whereby his application seeking leave on loss of pay under the Sabbatical Leave Scheme from 3rd October, 2026 to 2nd August, 2027, has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that request of the petitioner for leave on loss of pay under the Sabbatical Leave Scheme has illegally been rejected. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled for the relief in terms of the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 11869 of 2024 (S-RES), (Smt. Chandni Arora vs. Indian Overseas Bank and 2 Others), NC: 2024:KHC:28609. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashwani Kumar Sachan, Saurabh Sachan Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Krishna Mohan Asthana Smt. Smarika .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Bank) submits that the claim of the petitioner under the Sabbatical Leave Scheme can be reconsidered on a fresh representation to be moved by the petitioner. 6. In view of the above, no useful no useful purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation seeking leave on loss of pay under the Sabbatical Leave Scheme before the General Manager (respondent No. 3) ventilating his grievance raised in the instant writ petition within a period of one week from today, along with a certified copy of this order and a self attested copy of the present writ petition. Upon receipt of the same, respondent No. 3 shall consider and decide the request of the petitioner for leave on loss of pay under the Sabbatical Leave Scheme sympathetically, by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks from the date of production of such representation. 7. It is clarified that the impugned order dated 04.09.2026 shall abide by the fresh order to be passed by the respondent No. 3 pursuant to the order of the date. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, present writ petition stands disposed of. October 6, 2026 vinay WRIA No. 16357 of 2026 2 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad