Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Case No. 693/961 of 1984, decided on 18th February, 1985.
‑‑‑ Leave‑‑On medical grounds‑‑Cannot be refused‑‑Appellant proceeding on sanctioned leave and not joining on expiry‑‑Sending application for extension of leave on grounds of illness duly supported by certificate of Medical Superintendent, District Headquarter Hospital describing disease and advising rest‑‑Competent authority instead of sanctioning leave treating same as without. pay and imposing penalty of censure on plea that appellant had broken a gentleman's promise and request for extension was not genuine‑‑Competent authority, in circumstances, held, could not refuse leave and could at the most direct appellant to appear before Medical Board‑‑Impugned order set aside by Service Tribunal and period involved treated as medical leave on full pay‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4.
Haji Muahtaq Ahmad Aqil for Appellant.
A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
Qadir Bakhsh Bhatti has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Multan Zone, Multan and Superintending Engineer, Headquarters, Irrigation Multan Zone, Multan, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 10‑4‑1984, be set aside and appeal accepted.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant applied for four months' leave w.e.f. 16‑6‑1983 to 13‑10‑1983, which was duly sanctioned by the Department. However, after the expiry of leave he fell ill and submitted Medical Certificate given by Medical Superintendent District Headquarters Hospital, Faisalabad, in which he was advised bed rest because he was suffering with Lambago pain. This was not considered a genuine request by the Superintending Engineer, Headquarters Irrigation, Multan Zone, Multan, who was of the opinion that in this manner the appellant had violated certain mendatory provisions of rules and had also broken a gentleman's promise. He imposed upon him penalty of censure as well as treated the medical leave as extraordinary leave without pay. The appellant filed an appeal before the Chief Engineer, Irrigation as he has received no reply and after waiting for 90 days he has filed this appeal before this Tribunal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Superintending Engineer Headquarters, Multan had mentioned that the appellant had broken gentleman's promise which was not a fact. The appellant had all intention to join his duty but it was act of Almighty God that he fell ill and could not do so. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this is why he sent Medical Certificate duly issued by Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Faisalabad. A grievance has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No.2 had no right to refuse the medical certificate/medical leave because the rules do not permit him to do so. According to the learned counsel the respondent No. 2 had relied on the old rules which were no more in the field, therefore, his contention should not be taken into consideration.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by the Department as well as supported the order of the respondent No.2 and has prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the appellant's second leave application does not contain a mention for any personal work and is duly supported by a medical certificate of a person holding the rank of Medical Superin tendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Faisalabad. In. view of this established fact on record the medical leave could not be refused to him, at the most if the Superintending Engineer respondent No.2 Has not satisfied about the genuineness of the said leave he could have issued him a docket to appear before the Medical Board but what find is that no docket has been issued nor any such direction has been given for the said purpose and the order of the Superintending Engineer, Respondent No.2 is based on conjecture and surmises by taking in his mind that second medical leave was in fact to prolong leave so granted to the appellant on some private affairs. This suspicion would be ill‑founded when I find there is documentary evidence in the form of Medical certificate of Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Faisalabad, in which the disease has been defined as well as bed rest has been advised to the patient (appellant).
8. In view of the above analysis of the case, I proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct that leave from 13‑10‑1983 to 13‑11‑1983, be treated as medical leave on full pay.
Announced in the open Court on 18‑2‑1985. Judgment be released the parties accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
A. E. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer