AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—Heard both sides.
The petitioner has filed O.A. No. 8307 of 1997, seeking to challenge the order of the second respondent, dated 16.2.1997 and also the order
of the first respondent, dated 17.6.1997.
In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 37877 of 2006. On behalf
of the respondents, a reply affidavit, dated 21.12.1998 was filed, justifying the impugned order.
The petitioner was working as a Ranger and he retired on superannuation on 28.02.1997. While he was working in the Hosur Roving Check
post, he applied for 2 days casual leave on 6.8.1994 and 7.8.1994. On the expiry of the casual leave, the petitioner proceeded on medical leave
on the advice of his physician. The medical leave started from 8.8.1994 lasted till 26.6.1995, i.e. nearly for a period of 323 days. The petitioner
was sent for examination by the Medical Board. The Medical Board, by its letter, dated 21.9.1996, recommended leave. On return to duty, he
joined service on 30.6.1995. Subsequently, the petitioner requested the respondent to treat the leave period from 6.8.94 to 30.06.95 as a special
disability leave in terms of FR 83. The Rule provides for the Government to grant a special disability leave, if he is disabled by an injury
intentionally inflicted or caused or in consequence of due performance of his official duties or in consequence of his official position.
The petitioner was not given such a concession. On the contrary, major portion of the leave was treated as an extraordinary leave with medical
certificate. The petitioner''s letter addressed to the Chief Minister Grievance Cell was sent for appropriate action by the first respondent. The first
respondent by the impugned order dated 17.6.97 rejected the said request.
6.In justification of the said order, the respondents have made the following averments in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the reply affidavit, which reads as
follows:
It is submitted that the applicant has addressed the Chief Minister''s Cell in his application dated 4.4.97 for considering his case to treat the leave
period from 6.3.94 to 30.5.95 as special disability leave. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in his Ref. No. 82/20338/97, dated 17.6.97
has rejected the applicant''s request and confirmed that the applicant is not entitled for special disability leave as per Fundamental Rule 83 and 83A
based on the recommendation of the Medical Board that the applicant was suffering from ''Diabetes Millitus with gangrene left log and reunit
infections during the leave period availed by him from 8.8.94 to 13.11.94 and from 22.2.93 to 26.6.93.
It is submitted that proposal was sent to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests who is competent to sanction of ''Special disability leave''
as requested by the applicant in Chennai Conservator of Forest''s Ref. No. E2/1524/96, dated 23.7.96 since the power of sanctioning of special
disability leave is vested with the head of department. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests who is the head of department, thoroughly
examined the case with reference to the recommendation of the Medical Board which recommended to act as per rules to sanction leave on
medical grounds. There was application of mind on the part of the respondents, while issuing orders as per rules and based on the recommendation
of the Medical Board.
Though the petitioner suffering due to diabetes and that too with Gangrene foot can be labelled as disability, but the Rule 83 speaks about the
special disability. Such a leave can be conferred only if there was an injury intentionally inflicted or caused due to performance of official duty or in
consequence of his official position. Unless the petitioner establishes his disablement arose out of such contingencies, the question of giving
direction to the Government to confer a particular type of leave does not vest with this Court.
In the light of the explanation offered by the respondents, there is no case made out. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.