IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19241 of 2010(S)
1. T.V.MURALIDHARAN, S/O.P.A.NAYAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :28/06/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.19241 OF 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Petitioner challenges a decision of the Central
Administrative Tribunal.
2.The petitioner joined the Railways on 12.11.1970. He was
absent for a period of 462 days, from 10.1.1997 to 15.2.1999.
As per Ext.P1 dated 1.4.2006, the Senior DOM/PGT
regularised that absence by treating that period as extra-
ordinary leave, clearly stating that the treatment of the
period of absence as extra-ordinary leave is to avoid
monetary loss in pensionary benefits. That decision became
final. Later, the petitioner retired on 31.1.2007. Now, his
case is that the period of absence ought to have been treated
as leave availed on medical ground and therefore, he was
WPC.19241/10
2
entitled to have medical leave for that period. After
adverting to and considering the different materials and
taking note also of a judgment of this Court in O.P.24304/98,
the Tribunal came to the clear conclusion that on facts, the
petitioner’s request for consideration of his absence period as
leave on medical grounds could not be treated at par with the
case decided by this Court in O.P.24304/98. The Tribunal
held that the Railways have full medical facilities and the
general expectation is to seek medical treatment only from
the Railway hospital and resort to private doctors could be
only in exceptional circumstances and that too, as a stop gap
arrangement. As regards the petitioner’s case, the period
involved was 462 days and he was found to have chosen not
to seek medical facilities from the Railway doctors.
Annexure-A1 order of the Senior DOM/PGT was considered,
assimilated and interpreted by the Tribunal by stating that
the said officer was fully conscious of the details and what
was granted was only extra-ordinary leave and that it
WPC.19241/10
3
necessarily meant that leave on medical ground was rejected.
Taking the view that the said order cannot be used for
converting the extra-ordinary leave as medical leave, the
Tribunal repelled the plea of the petitioner.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances noted above,
we do not find any ground to interfere with the reasons
stated in the impugned order. It is not vitiated on any count
of illegality or error of jurisdiction. The writ petition fails.
The same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
Judge.
kkb.7/07.