WP(C) 2591/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY (Goel,J.) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 31.05.2010, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in Original Applica tion No.22/2010, dismissing the application of the petitioner for direction to p ay salary for the period from 11.07.2006 to 07.02.2007, granting leave due to hi m as per the Rules. The petitioner was employed in the Railway administration. On account of aboliti on of the post of Chief Law Assistant in Rangia Division, he was transferred to Tinsukia. He was relieved on 10.07.2006. The petitioner did not join the new pos ting and challenged the same by filing an application before the Central Adminis trative Tribunal (CAT), which was dismissed on 18.07.2006. Writ petition filed a gainst the said order was dismissed by this Court. However, since the petitioner did not join his new posting, he was treated as absent from duty and denied sal ary. Aggrieved by denial of salary and other benefits for the period 11.07.2006 to 07.02.2007 during which period the petitioner did not join the new place of p osting, fresh application was filed before the CAT on the ground that the petiti oner had fallen sick on 13.07.2006 and was advised 45 days rest. In these circum stances, the denial of salary was not justified. Claim of the petitioner was contested by the department on the ground that if th e petitioner was actually unwell he would have taken treatment at the place of h is posting and not elsewhere. Moreover, he had not taken the plea now taken, in the petition originally filed even though such plea was available to him on the date of filing of the earlier petition. The finding recorded is as under : If he fell seriously ill on 13.07.2006 and taken to State Government District J ail Hospital, why said plea had not been raised vide aforesaid O.A. No.175/2006 is a matter of grave concern and this in itself shows that plea raised by him in present O.A. is nothing but a bundle of lies and an attempt to mislead this Tri bunal. We find justification in the contention raised by the respondents that th ough medical facilities were available at Rangiya as well s at Tinsukia, instead of availing said medical facilities, he chose to take treatment from private me dical practitioner. Under the rules in vogue, a railway servant should approach the nearest Railway Doctor. No cogent explanation has been offered by him for no t availing such prescribed procedure. In our considered view he has not approach ed this Tribunal with clean hands and, therefore, he deserves no sympathy. We have heard Mr. K. U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Sarkar, learned Standing Counsel, N. F. Railway. The factual finding that the petitioner had not taken the plea of illness in the earlier petition filed before the CAT has not been shown to be erroneous. The plea now taken apart from being an afterthought, also suffers from constructive res judicata. It has been pointed out in the petition filed in this Court that subsequently th e petitioner was found to be having sickness by the Railway doctor and this fact was reflected in the X-ray report from which it could be presumed that he was i ll earlier also. This plea can also not be accepted. Subsequent illness cannot b e conclusive of illness during earlier period, particularly when at the earliest opportunity no such plea was taken. Moreover, a finding of fact recorded by the CAT, unless perverse, is not liable to be interfered with. Thus, finding no merit, we dismiss the writ petition. No order as to costs.