AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J—This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1012 of 2011 dated 3rd July, 2014 whereby, the writ petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and the decision taken by the respondents not to grant Special Leave was held as valid one. Against this judgment and order, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
Counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) submitted that the petitioner had suffered heart attack in the year 1999 for which he had undergone operation etc. and again he suffered from heart disease and therefore, gone to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi for check up on 1st July, 2009 where he was advised to take rest for two months, again he gone to further check up on 1st September, 2009, again he was advised to take rest for two months, this appellant (original petitioner) again gone to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi for further check up on 2nd November, 2009 and he was advised to take 15 days rest. This appellant again visited Apollo Hospital, New Delhi and again he was advised to take rest for one month. Thus, from 19th June, 2009 till 15th December, 2009 he applied for Special Leave as per clause 6.6 of Coal India Limited Leave Rules, which was denied by the respondents and therefore, this appellant preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1012 of 2011 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 3rd July, 2014.
Counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) has relied upon the certificate issued by the Apollo Hospital, New Delhi dated 9th December, 2009 and also has relied upon the certificate issued by the Apollo Hospital, New Delhi dated 27th March, 2010 and has submitted that this appellant was suffering from heart disease. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside and this appellant may be granted Special Leave for the period running from 19th June, 2009 to 15th December, 2009.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the policy decision taken by the respondents for grant of Special Leave, as per clause 6.6 of the Leave Rules, if this appellant was suffering from severe heart attack and if that certificate given by an Authorized Medical Officer in this circumstances, he was entitled to get Special Leave for six months otherwise, not. The conditions attached under clause 6.6 of the Leave Rules of the respondents had not been fulfilled by the appellant and hence, the application for granting Special Leave to the appellant was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 29/30 January, 2010.
It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondents that looking to the two certificates, it appears that the 2nd one dated 27th March, 2010 has got no value at all because it talks about heart attack in the year 1999 and the period for which the Special Leave applied it is from June, 2009 to December, 2009. So far another certificate dated 9th December, 2009, is concerned, neither it is given by any Authorized Medical Officer nor the said certificate reveals that this appellant (original petitioner) has suffered any severe heart attack. Thus, none of these certificates are useful to this appellant for grant of Special Leave. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
Moreover, it further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that on not a single day the appellant had ever been admitted as an Indoor patient in the Apollo Hospital, New Delhi for the period running from 19th June, 2009 to 15th December, 2009 nor this appellant had ever been operated during this period by the Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. Every time this appellant visited the said hospital and as he was suffering from some another disease, other than severe heart attack, he was advised to take rest. This does not mean that the appellant was suffering from severe heart attack. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant.
Counsel for the respondents further submitted that this appellant has now reached at the age of superannuation from January, 2010 and thus, it appears that since he was to retire from January, 2010, last six months he wanted to enjoy and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.
Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons:-
(i) This appellant is an original petitioner, who preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1012 of 2011, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 3rd July, 2014 and hence, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(ii) It appears that the appellant had applied for Special Leave for the period running from 19th June, 2009 to 15th December, 2009 mainly on the ground that he was suffering from severe heart disease. This leave application was preferred as per clause 6.6 of the Leave Rules of the respondents. For ready reference clause No. 6.6 of the Leave Rules for grant of Special Leave reads as under:-
"6.6 Special Leave
Special leave on full pay for a total period not exceeding six months during the entire service may be Granted only when the employee is suffering from the following diseases on production of medical certificate from an authorized medical officer:
� T.B.
� Cancer
� Leprosy
� Severe Heart Attack
� Paralysis
� Any other disease which the Chairman/MD my add to the list
� By-pass and Open Heart Surgery included vide circular letter No. C-5(vi) 50706/1/230 dated 4th September, 1985 (Annexure-XIV)."
(Emphasis supplied)
In view of the aforesaid clause for the applicability of clause 6.6, following are the conditions:
(a) Special Leave can be granted for the total period not exceeding six months during the entire service period.
(b) It never obligatory on the part of the respondents that the respondents must grant the Special Leave. The word used in clause 6.6 are "may be granted".
(c) the medical certificate ought to have been given by an Authorized Medical Officer.
(d) the employee must be suffering from either:-
(i) TB, or
(ii) Cancer, or
(iii) Leprosy, or
(iv) Severe heart attack, or
(v) Paralysis, or
(vi) any other disease which the Chairman/Managing Director of Coal India Limited may add to this list
(vii) By-pass or open heart surgery.
(iii) Looking to the certificates annexed by the appellant (original petitioner) this appellant was neither suffering from severe heart attack nor he was undergone by-pass or open heart surgery during the period running from 19th June, 2009 to 15th December, 2009, a period for which Special Leave was sought for.
(iv) Looking to the facts of the present case, it appears that at the highest this appellant (original petitioner) was suffering from some heart ailments for which he gone to medical check up in Apollo Hospital, New Delhi on 1st July, 2009 where he was advised to take rest for two months, appellant took there rest for two months, again he went to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi on 1st September, 2009, again he was treated as an outdoor patient and he was advised to take rest for further two months. The appellant again visited Apollo Hospital, New Delhi on 2nd November, 2009 and again he was advised to take rest for 15 days and further one more time he was advised to take rest for one month. This is how he took rest upto 15th December, 2009, just prior to his retirement in the month of January, 2010. Neither this appellant was ever admitted, for a single day in Apollo Hospital, New Delhi nor he undergone any surgery during this period, as he was to retired it appears that he enjoyed the last six months. This is not permissible for getting Special Leave a per clause 6.6 as stated hereinabove. This type of attitude could not be tolerated by the respondents being Public Sector Undertaking. The case of this appellant is not falling within the scope and ambit of clause 6.6 of the Leave Rules and hence, no error has been committed by the respondents in rejecting the application preferred by this appellant for getting Special Leave.
(v) The certificates upon which this appellant is relied upon never reveals that this appellant was suffering from any severe heart disease during the period running from 19th June, 2009 to 15th December, 2009. In the year passed 1999, he had suffered from heart attack. Be as it may, we are not concerned with the period of year period 1999. The leave application is for the period June, 2009 to December, 2009 i.e., after one decade of the heart disease and therefore, also no error has been committed by the respondents for rejecting Special Leave of this appellant. Similarly, certificate dated 9th December, 2009 is also not helpful to this appellant. It never reveals that this appellant was suffering from severe heart attack nor the certificate reveals that this appellant has undergone by-pass or open heart surgery during the aforesaid period for which the Special Leave was sought for.
As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid afore said facts and reasons, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant and we see no reason to take any other view that what has taken by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1012 of 2011 order dated 3rd July, 2014. There is no substance in this Letters Patent appeal and hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.