Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMRIT SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY.U.P.POWER CORP. LUCKNOW & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Amrit Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy.U.P.Power Corp. Lucknow & Others - WRIT - A No. 39067 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1318 (12 May 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 36

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39067 of 2005

Amrit Singh

Versus

State of U.P.  and others

_________

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble G.P. Srivastva, J.

The petitioner made an application for reconsideration of the matter and grant of medical leave for the period 28th July 1998 to 21st April 1999. The request has been turned down by the impugned order dated 5th March 2005, annexure-8 to this writ petition.

We have heard both sides.

It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that annexure-1 is an opinion of the Medical Board dated 10th/12th August 1999, which has certified that the petitioner is fit for resuming duty but in which it has been mentioned by the Medical Board that they are unable to give any opinion about the past illness of the petitioner.

The petitioner had submitted a medical certificate from a registered medical practitioner having a M.B.B.S. degree regarding his illness. It is not the case of the respondents or of the Medical Board that the illness claimed by the petitioner was of a nature which was certain to be detected even after it ceased because of some after effects or symptoms which are left behind normally by such kind of illness. Therefore, the fact that the Medical Board has not been able to give any opinion is not a circumstance which can be read against the petitioner for refusing medical leave.

The prayer for medical leave of the petitioner was supported by the petitioner's own statement that he was ill and was further corroborated by the medical certificate of a registered medical practitioner. This could have been disbelieved by the respondents only if it could be shown that the petitioner was habitual of absenting himself on medical grounds, or if it could be shown by the respondents that the petitioner during the period of the alleged illness had some motive to abscond on the excuse of health problem. Normally, such things take place when an employee receives an order of transfer which he does not wish to comply with.

No such circumstances have been alleged or shown.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the respondents are not justified in refusing to sanction the medical leave claimed by the petitioner. We, therefore, quash the order dated 5.3.2005 and require the respondents to reconsider the request of the petitioner in accordance with the rules and in accordance with the above observations within three weeks of the date on which a certified copy of this order is presented before the respondent No. 1. The settlement of the post-retirement dues of the petitioner will take place in accordance with the decision taken.

This writ petition is allowed as above.

Dated: May 12, 2005

AM/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.