1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1382 of 2010 Baban S.Bante ..vs.. M.S.R.T.C. Nagpur. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JUNE 14, 2010. Notice issued by this court is for final disposal. Advocate Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the petitioner was given special cancer leave initially from 22/12/2002 to 26/12/2002 and the leave of nineteen days from 27/12/2002 (total 19 days) was sanctioned as without pay on personal grounds. However, thereafter on 22/1/2004 with reference to letter of Medical Board dated 7/1/2004, leave from 22/12/2002 till 15/01/2003 (total 25 days) was sanctioned as special caner leave. This leave was then cancelled by impugned order dated 28/1/2006 by recalling that order and treating leave of nineteen days i.e. from 27/12/2002 till 14/1/2003 as leave without pay. He contends that the leave was sanctioned as special cancer leave after receipt of letter of Medical Board dated 7/1/2004 and hence it could not have been cancelled like this. Advocate Wankhade, learned counsel for the respondent, states that the order of cancellation could have been passed after receipt of communication of Medical Board that the petitioner was fit for duties on 26/12/2003 itself. 2 He is inviting the attention to the communication dated 16/1/2003 of Medical Board. The perusal of communication relied upon by Advocate Wankhade shows that it is proceedings of Medical Board. The Medical Board has examined the petitioner on 26/12/2002 but lateron that date on it was scored and 16/1/2003 has been put upon it. Next document is communication dated 18/6/2003 by President of Medical Board, Medical College Nagpur to the employer of the petitioner wherein it is mentioned that the report of Medical Board was received and sent to the respondent on 16/10/2003. It is further mentioned that the date 16/1/2003 should be treated as date of joining and his leave till 16/1/2003 should be treated as admissible as per rule. The communication dated 22/1/2004 is already referred to by me above. All these documents, therefore, show that the Medical Board itself has found leave till 16/1/2003 as admissible to the petitioner. The respondents have also sanctioned that leave on 22/1/2004 because of letter dated 7/1/2004 of Medical Board by reversing its own orders dated 25/1/2002. The learned Member of the Industrial Court has overlooked these communications from Medical Board and has gone only by the Certificate which declares him fit. However, though the petitioner was examined on 26/12/2002, the certificate of fitness is issued on 16/1/2003 and President of Medical Board himself has in this situation certified that the leave admissible should be treated as a leave till 16/1/2003 and 16/1/2003 should be treated as joining date. 3 Therefore, the application of mind by Industrial Court cannot be sustained. The action taken by the respondent is not in accordance with rules and recommendations of Medical Board. The impugned communication dated 20/6/2006 is quashed and set aside and communication dated 22/1/2004 stands restored. Rule Accordingly. No costs. JUDGE chute