IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 3283 of 2011(Z) ---------------------------- OA.8/2010 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER/APPLICANT ---------------------------------------- R.K.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN PILLAI, STATION SUPERINTENDENT, PARAPPANANGADI RAILWAY STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PERMANENT ADDRESS: "KRISHNAPRIYA", MASTER VILLA NO.1, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD-678 002. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.KALA T.GOPI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-600 003. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MEDICAL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY HOSPITAL, PALAKKAD-678 002. 3. DR.SREEKUMAR, SENIOR DIVISIONAL MEDICAL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY HOSPITAL, PALAKKAD-678 002. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL OPERATIONS MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD-678 002. S.C. FOR RAILWAYS SRI. V.K. MOHAMMED YOUSUF. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(CAT) 3283/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 A TRUE EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE INDIAN RAILWAY MEDICAL MANUAL. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF O.A. NO. 8 OF 2010 DATED 3RD JANUARY, 2010 WITH ITS ANNEXURES. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED 15.3.2010. EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.1.2011 IN O.A. NO. 8 OF 2010 RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Ag. C.J. & P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P. (CAT) 3283 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011. C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Ag. C.J. Original petition is filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) confirming the impugned order of the Railways issued against the petitioner declaring that petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 14.6.2009 to 18.6.2009. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for Railways. Petitioner, while working as station master in a railway station, went for medical examination on 8.6.2009. The doctor advised him to go for correction of vision by purchasing spectacles. Even though petitioner was granted time required to acquire the spectacles and was requested to report for re-examination before the medical officer, petitioner reported for duty only on 19.6.2009. The medical officer declared that petitioner was entitled to five days benefit to be treated as on duty and the balance period from 14.6.2009 to 18.6.2009 should be treated as period of unauthorized absence. When the petitioner challenged the same, the CAT confirmed it against which this original petition is filed. 2. After hearing both sides and after going through the orders of the O.P.(CAT) 3283/2011 2 CAT, we notice that the CAT was under a wrong impression that General Manager’s approval is required under para 524(iii) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual (IRMM) for petitioner to avail leave beyond five days. Petitioner’s case is that he only submitted an application before the leave sanctioning authority for benefit under para 524(iii). In other words, according to him, he did not request for treatment of the excess period beyond five days as on duty. We find force in this contention because under para 524(iii) the General Manager, is the authority to extend duty beyond five days when the employee avails medical aid. However, the rule otherwise provides to debit the period availed for medical facilities in the leave account and so much so, the entire period has to be treated as leave wherefrom the period eligible under the rule to be treated as on duty. In this case, for changing spectacles, the rules permits the employee to avail five days time on duty. There is no controversy on this and respondents have granted five days time from 8.6.2009 to 13.6.2009 to the petitioner as duty period. So far as the balance period ie. from 14.6.2009 to 18.6.2009 is concerned, we do not think any clearance from General Manager is required unless petitioner wants that period to be treated as period of duty. So much so, petitioner's claim that this period should be treated as leave admissible under the rules is acceptable. In fact, it is only for the leave sanctioning O.P.(CAT) 3283/2011 3 authority to consider whether petitioner is entitled to leave for this period and if so, how the period has to be debited and against what kind of leave. We, therefore, allow the O.P. (CAT) by vacating the orders of the CAT and that of the railway authority with direction to the leave sanctioning authority to consider petitioner’s application to be submitted along with a copy of this judgment for leave from 14.6.2009 to 18.6.2009. Petitioner shall submit the application within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is for the leave sanctioning authority to consider and grant leave under the appropriate category. Consequential benefits should be given based on the orders to be issued by the leave sanctioning authority. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-