IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19241 of 2010(S) -------------------------- OA.336/2009 of CAT,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.V.MURALIDHARAN, S/O.P.A.NAYAR, RESIDING AT'NIVEDHYAM', HILL VIEW NAGAR, DHONI P.O., OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD 678 009. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PERSONNEL BRANCH, PALAKKAD. BY ADV.SRI.N.B.SUNILNATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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.