2013 (6) TMI 638 - HC - Indian Laws

Non release of pensionary benefits - leave without notice / sanction - petitioner was posted as Inspector in Indian Oil Corporation, Range Barauli Oil Refinery, he went on leave w.e.f. 23.7.1990. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was suffering from arthritis and was unable to perform his duties. - Held that - The petitioner in the alternative could show exceptional circumstances for sanction of leave. No such circumstances were shown to the concerned authorities, as has been observed in the orders passed by the authorities. Rather the authorities asked the petitioner to present himself for medical examination before Civil Surgeon, Farrukhabad in the year 1994. Admittedly, the petitioner did not get himself examined medically for reasons best known to the petitioner. A suspicion in regard to bona fides of the petitioner is raised in the mind of this Court as to why the petitioner did not want to get himself medically examined to support his plea for leave on medical grounds. No plausible, justifiable or accepted reason is coming forth for not getting himself medically examined. The petitioner in above noted circumstances wants benefit of continuous service, without having worked. Thus, equity also does not favour the case of the petitioner. - Decided against the petitioner employee.

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of Central Administrative Tribunal orders dated 3.9.2010 and 22.2.2012.
2. Direction for payment of provisional pension to the petitioner.
3. Legitimacy of the petitioner's medical leave from 23.7.1990 to 13.3.1997.
4. Petitioner's non-compliance with directives to resume duties and appear for medical examination.
5. Exceptional circumstances for sanctioning leave exceeding five years under Rule 12 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972.
6. Petitioner's entitlement to pensionary benefits.

Detailed Analysis:

Quashing of Central Administrative Tribunal Orders:
The petitioner sought to quash the orders dated 3.9.2010 and 22.2.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad. The Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner's Original Application No.604 of 2008 and Review Application No.64 of 2010, respectively, which challenged the rejection of his medical leave and subsequent pension claims.

Direction for Payment of Provisional Pension:
The petitioner also sought a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of provisional pension. However, the Tribunal and the High Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim for pensionary benefits due to the unresolved status of his prolonged medical leave.

Legitimacy of Medical Leave:
The petitioner claimed medical leave from 23.7.1990 to 13.3.1997 due to arthritis. Despite submitting medical certificates, the leave was not sanctioned. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to provide adequate medical evidence and did not comply with directives to appear before the Civil Surgeon for verification.

Non-compliance with Directives:
The petitioner was directed to resume duties within fifteen days in 1994 and to appear before the Civil Surgeon, Farrukhabad, but he did not comply. The High Court noted that the petitioner did not provide valid reasons for his non-compliance, which undermined his claim for medical leave.

Exceptional Circumstances for Leave:
Under Rule 12 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, leave exceeding five years requires the President's sanction in exceptional circumstances. The High Court found no exceptional circumstances in the petitioner's case that warranted such leave. The petitioner's failure to present himself for medical examination further weakened his claim.

Entitlement to Pensionary Benefits:
The petitioner opted for voluntary retirement on 6.2.2002, which was accepted on 5.5.2002. However, his pension claims were denied due to the unresolved status of his medical leave. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the petitioner's prolonged absence without proper medical verification did not justify pensionary benefits.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no error in the Tribunal's orders or the respondents' actions. The petitioner's claims for medical leave and pensionary benefits were unsupported by adequate evidence and compliance with procedural requirements. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to directives and providing valid medical evidence to substantiate claims for extended leave and pension entitlements.

← Previous Next →