AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Kulasekaran, J.—The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for a writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings ofthe first respondent made in Memo (Per) No.1106/D1/95-1 dated 31 -08-1996 andto quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize theperiod between 02-12-1994 and 19-04-1995 as Unearned leave on MedicalCertificate and between 20-04-1995 and 02-05-1995 as compulsory wait andextend all benefits both service and monetary.
Heard the counsel for both sides.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued thatthe petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer (O & M) Pallikonda underthe control of the 2nd respondent, due to ill health he had availed medicalleave with effect from 02-12-1994 to 11-12-1994. The leave application wassubmitted on 02-12-1994 and subsequently, the medical treatment for thepetitioner continued beyond the said period and he extended the leave for aperiod of five months from the initial date. The petitioner has not availedany medical leave during his service except the one stated above. Thepetitioner was referred before the Medical Board for second medical opinion atVellore instead of Negercoil with an ulterior motive and also with anintention to make the petitioner suffer by travel, that the date forappearance before the medical board was fixed on 25-01-1995 at 09.00 a.m., an intimation for the same was received by the petitioner only on 27-01-1995.The petitioner sent a letter to the Medical Board seeking another date for his appearance. In the meantime, the 2nd respondent by his Memo dated 16-02-1995rejected the leave application of the petitioner without following any procedure as contemplated under the Rules or even without taking into account the representation of the petitioner, with the result, the petitioner had been denied of his legal dues by withholding the pay and allowance and other consequential benefits arising thereto in view of the non-regularisation of the period between 02-12-1994 and 21-03-1995. The medical board certified on19-04-1995 that the petitioner is fit for joining duty but the petitioner was unable to join the duty upto 02-05-1995 and put on compulsory wait from 22-03-1995 in view of non-issuance of posting orders. The said absence though has to be regularized as duty for all purposes in so far as the period between 20-04-1995 and 02-05-1995, it is the fault of the respondents in not giving postings after the petitioner reported for duty and to treat the period between 02-12-1994 and 21-03-1995 as Medical leave on medical certificate instead of treating the said period as leave on loss of pay. The petitioner represented through his counsel by petition dated 28-05-1995 to treat the above period as leave on medical certificate and compulsory wait respectively and for extension of all consequential benefits arising thereto but the respondents have passed the orders which is impugned in this writ petition treating the period as unearned leave on medical certificate, extraordinary leave without pay and allowances and earned leave specifying different spells, hence this writ petition.
The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner had applied for unearned leave on Medical certificate on 02-12-1994for 8 days from 02-12-1994 and 09-12-1994 with permission to avail the holiday on 10-12-1994 and 11-12-1994. In the meantime, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Executive Engineer (General) Nagapattinam Electricity Distribution Circle. The Superintending Engineer, Tirupathur Electricity Distribution Circle had informed the petitioner that he is deemed to have been relieved on 02-12-1994 at Pallikonda on transfer. Instead of joining duty at the new station, the petitioner has extended the leave on medical certificate in piecemeal without medical certificate along with leave application for 3spells of leave with an intention to avoid joining the new station. Since the petitioner has sent a medical certificate obtained from a Civil Surgeon at Ambur, Vellore District, he was directed to appear before the Medical Board at Vellore. As per clause 10 (a) (i) (a) under Regulation 34 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Leave Regulations, before leave is granted, the recommendations of the medical board shall be compulsorily obtained in case where the unearned leave on medical certificate applied for by employee exceeds 60 days. In this case the total leave applied for by the petitioner exceeds more than 6 0 days as such he was referred to the medical board at Vellore. Since the petitioner has not appeared before the medical board, Vellore and purposely extended the leave in order to avoid joining duty at Nagapattinam, the reasons assigned by the petitioner for his nonappearance before the medical board was rejected. Again, the petitioner was directed to appear before the medical board Vellore by the Superintending Engineer, Thirupathur Electricity Distribution Circle when he has applied for extension of leave for the period from 22-03-1995 to 2 0-04-1995 (VI spell), but he reported that he could not appear before the Medical Board on 19-04-1995 since he was bedridden from 17-04-19 95 and produced medical certificate but he appeared on 19-04-1995 and the Medical Board declared that the petitioner is fit to join duty on 19-04-1995 afternoon. Even after the medical board certified, he petitioner has not reported his readiness for joining duty, strangely, he again applied for leave on medical certificate from 21-04-1995to 02-05-1995, hence, the posting order was not issued to him. Since the petitioner has not submitted his readiness on 19-04-1995 to join duty, he was not given posting. Out of seven spells of leave, the petitioner did not submit medical certificate along with leave applications while extending the leave for the II to V spells i.e., 28-12-1994 to 02-03-1995. Therefore, the Superintending Engineer, Thirupathur Electricity Distribution Circle has rejected the leave applied for by the petitioner and called for his explanation vide his memo dated 15-07-1995 and the petitioner has also submitted his explanation on 03-03-1995. It is evident from the above that the petitioner has disobeyed the order of the superiors and his action has caused much administrative inconvenience to the Board. Considering the overall circumstance, the respondent has treated the absence of the petitioner as follows:-
From 02-12-1994 to 21-03-1995 E.L.W.A. From 22-03-1995 to 19-04-1995 UEL on MC From 20-04-1995 to 02-05-1995 E.L.W.A.
The petitioner has made a review petition on 28-10-1995 to consider the orders and sanction extra-ordinary leave before the first respondent and the first respondent has revised the same and passed orders in Memo dated31-08-1996 as follows:-
From 02-12-1994 to 09-12-1994 UEL on MC From 10-12-1994 to 21-03-1995 ELWA From 22-03-1995 to 19-04-1995 UEL on MC From 20-04-1995 to 02-05-1995 EL
The petitioner has been dealt with by the respondents as per Clause 10 (a) (i) (a) under Regulation 34 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Leave Regulations and the period of his absence has been regularized accordingly in the review petition. I find no malafide intention or arbitrary decision in issuing the memo dated 31-08-19 96. In this case, the total leave applied for from 02-12-94 to 21-03 -1995 is is 110 days. As the petitioner did not appear before the Medical Board, the period from 02-12-94 to21-03-1995 has been treated as extraordinary leave without pay and allowances. However ,with reference to his review petition, the period from 02-12-1994 to09-12-19 94 has been regularized as unearned leave on medical certificate ashe had applied for the above leave before issue of his transfer order. Only the subsequent period from 10-12-1994 to 21-03-1995 which was not covered by the recommendation of the medical board has been regularized as leave without pay and allowances. The absence from 22-03-199 5 to 19-04-1995 was considered as Unearned Leave on Medical Certificate and the period from 20-04-1995 to02-05-1995 was treated as Earn leave.
I do not find any infirmities in the order passed in the Memo dated 31-08-1996 on the review petition filed by the Petitioner. Hence, I confirm the order passed by the first respondent in Memo dated 31-08-1996 as such this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is closed.