IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.01.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
Writ Petition No.1001 of 2010
and M.P.No.1 of 2010
1. Union of India
Rep. by The General Manager,
Southern Railways,
Park Town,
Chennai 600 003
2. The Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railways,
Park Town,
Chennai 600 003.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Madurai Division,
Southern Railways,
Madurai. ..Petitioners.
Vs.
1. P.Ramanathan,
Senior Divisional Medical Officer,
No.56, Adappu Street,
Ambasamudram,
Tirunelveli District.
2. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench,
Chennai 600 104. .. Respondents
The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 23.10.2009 passed in O.A.No.817 of 2008 on the files of the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras bench, Chennai 600 104, the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Chidambaram
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
This writ application challenges an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal made in O.A.No.817/2008 whereby the Tribunal passed an order allowing the application made by the applicant/first respondent herein.
2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners.
3. Admittedly, while the applicant/1st respondent was working as a Divisional Medical Officer in Madurai Southern Railways, he joined M.D. Course (General Medicines) at Madurai Medical College and applied for leave on average pay for the period from 25.5.2005 to 3.6.2005 and E.O.L from 4.7.2005 to 24.5.2008. The respondents by their proceedings dated 23.5.2008 sanctioned EOL for a period of three years from 25.5.2005 to 24.5.2008. After joining the course, the applicant made a request for grant of study leave for two years instead of EOL. The same was sanctioned for the period from 25.5.2005 to 24.5.2007 i.e., for two years. It is the contention of the petitioners that two years was granted as per rules in force at that time. Thereafter, pursuant to the letter issued by the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training in their letter dated 26.10.2007 passed an order increasing the period of study leave from 24 months to 36 months which was adopted by the Railway Board in the circular RBC No.157/2007. Pursuant to which, the applicant made a representation to treat the period from 24.5.2007 to 27.3.2008 as study leave on the basis of amended Rules. The said request was rejected by the respondents therein who are the writ petitioners herein by order dated 13.5.2008. Under such circumstances, the applicant/first respondent herein filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. After giving opportunity to both sides, the Tribunal took a view that it was a fit case where the leave has got to be granted and the said Original Application was allowed. Aggrieved over the same, the Department has brought forth this writ application.
4. The only contention putforth by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners as done before the Tribunal is that originally, the applicant/first respondent herein sought for leave for two years from 25.5.2005 to 24.5.2007 and the same was actually sanctioned. While the matter stood thus, he made a representation to treat the period from 24.5.2007 to 27.3.2008 as the study leave i.e., pursuant to the orders of the Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances and Pension Department of Personnel and Training, extending the study leave from 24 months to 36 months. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that originally the leave which could be availed by first respondent herein for studies was 24 months only and he applied for it and the same was granted to him. He should not be allowed to get the benefit of any order which was passed subsequently since it could be given only prospective effect and not retrospective effect. The learned counsel also took the Court to the relevant Rules. The Tribunal has not agreed with the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein which in the considered opinion of this Court is correct.
5. It is not in controversy that the first respondent herein sought for leave for the purpose of pursuing the M.D. Course and the intention of the legislature to grant study leave was only for the purpose of pursuing the studies. Therefore, once it is not disputed that the course is only for a period of three years i.e., P.G,. course in M.D. (General Medicine) was 3 years course and if the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is got to be accepted that only two years leave could be made available, then, then the Rule which was enacted for the purpose of pursuing the studies would be defeated. It is true, originally, when he applied for two years study leave, it was sanctioned. The intervening circumstance is the order of the Government. Thereafter, he made a representation to treat the period from 24.5.2007 to 27.3.2008 also as study leave. Once, the Court is able to see that the Rule was made for the benefit of the persons like that of the first respondent, the Court is unable to notice any merits in the contention putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioners that for the M.D.course which has got the duration of three years, leave could be granted only for two years.
6. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has taken a correct view and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by he Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.
vsi
To
1. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench,
Chennai 600 104