/ =1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5TH DIY OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE THE NON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HL DATTU BETWEEN: MB. Gajinkar aged about 37 years, Clerk—cum- Coin Note Examiner Grade—Il Cash Department, Reser ve Bank of India, Bangaiore, PETITIONER (By Sri Vishnu D. Bhat, Adv) AND 1. The Manager Reserve Bank of India, 8ancdi e 2. The Governor Reserve Bank of India, (Central Office) Bombay. .,. RESPONDENTS (By Sri 5,5. Ramdas, Adv,) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct R-1 to grant accident ieave to the petitioner and etc. THis writ petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following; ORDER Retitioner was working as a Cierk—cum- coin note examiner Grade II in the cash department of the Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore. Acc-ording to him some time in the month of September 1990 he met with an accident ins ide the bank premises• In view of this accident he has stated that he had to undergo hospitalisa.tion for treatment of several injuries: causeth Petitioner has also stated that because of hospitalisation and to recover from the injuries he had applied leave for nearly 134 days. Petitioner has also atate.d that he had applied for sanction of leave by enclosing a cert.. if icate issued by the Banks medical officer, The request of the petitioner made in the said application has been rejected’ by the respondents by their letter dated i2I21990. The said order reads as under: PleaSe refer to your letter dated 1st October 9O requesting for the grant of accident leave for period of your absence from 14th September to 27th October 1990. We adviss. that your request has been carefully examined by the Competent Authority but it is regretted that the same cannot b-c acceded to. 2. Th.e period of absence h.as been regi. larised by sanction of sick leave. Petitioner not being satisfied with the reply of the respondents had once again approached the respondents. The respondent. bank by yet. another order dated 2I014991 was pleased to reject the request of the petitioner for sanction of the accident leave. Aggrieved by that order petitioner had filed an appeal before the second respondent herein and the appeal came to be rejected by the respondents by their order dated 2309l992, The appellate authority while disposing oft the appeal has observed as under: Please refer to your letter dated 6th July 1002 enclosing a copy of your repre sentation dated 15th July 1991 addressed to the Governor. We advis:.e that Central Office have examined your request for grant of accident leave/reimbursement of medical expenses but regretted that their inability to accede to your request. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders Learned counsel a.ppering for the the petitioner submits that under Regulation 95(A) of the Reserve Bank of India (Sraff) Regulations 1948, petitioner is entitled for the accident leave. The request of the petitioner for accident leave could not have been rejected by the respondents by their impugned orders. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that the orders made by the respondent bank is not only arbitrary but contrary o e eg a on S( o tF Rculaiois nd u e r respondents would suomt that the bank had to re t he eoustof e et i r or gr t f accident leave only on the ground that oetxtioner did not so tai the iijuries duriw te ou se of emp osent a d the of e th a tic f respondents in rejecting his request for grant of c de Ia cc a F eg a n 95(A) of the Regulations. secondly learned counsel o r tpt o i c e of his own negligence and for that petitioner is no en tl I f ci nt ea A re ding of Regulation 9ScA) f he Regula on we Id nl in ca - t 3t c en Ic ye may be granted to en employee who sustained an y it t c s of i u a or e a for which leave is certified by banks medical r a t a e i i a that he eustaind iiuries duiio the cocse of empoy ci c se f ju e a fe d y uci4 him he has to ebsca +Tcp work ddvs for which he i rquesting the haik to canction Ic ye as a id t leve ivi ige nd ReguIetAonc Along with that request to grant of 5 sustained injuries pot duing the course at employment ar petitlorer sustained in1urie because f h wr n I g it a y vi w - s r a e thought. What is not said in the impugned order can at b supp non ea by tho e,poideit at a lat r atge he Cup Cft o t * a U a e u NOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. THE CHIEF ELECTION OH1 INE, E EL I I a al a pleased t obse so that then a Uatutory functlonarr makes n order based on ertain t Id y u h ra r so ment 1 oned and cannrt be sttpplemanted by trash rcaaona in the shapc at attidavit or ntherwrsc a ode di t e r time it comes to court on accotjr’t uf a on7iienge, o t v I ‘a e addat ur I gr aids Ia ci brough ut a y i’s h si ito sac b h Fupreme Cou t in Lw afo craiG Ga, ision ‘sould fuily t ai Liar’ D Or Ic ie ra. Ic nlr so lie er ifc te of a a k’ e ic 1 o f e respondent bank in their orders dated 12 1219QO ad 2191 wol p a ht tey Lv considered the requeat of the ptitione for nrant of accident leave and the same cannot cc arcedeo ‘a ret yd rt at r ii e o a apply to the fact situation n the instant case. At r f I spditba¼ dan p e ce stand that petltxoner drd not surer injuries d r q the c or e f ap oy sn o tlose H ur cc were suffered because of h’s own negligence. What i, no said inthe im?uged orders ir my vrew oannot be cupplerentd by he re p0 derts by a of th ir objec 4 ions In that view cf the matter, impugned orders d E 1110 ‘ 20 9 r n d b the appellate authority by Ore o’der dated 2 0 1 2 a qu , P e d b lu Respondents are directed to reconsider the request o t t to gi. o cde e e as claimed by him in representation dated 0 ,1 .1 0 n arc rd nc w th Ia a ep dit u ly as possib’e at any rate within three rronth° from t o dotc f recer t of a opy of 1015 Ocart’s f, I,,’ I La 110/ % it LRS/WPPli .90/0t0698, crde de e ac oriir I