H P SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a member of the Border Security Force (hereinafter reffered to as `The B.S.F.'), has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The main grievence of the petitioner is that despite the fact that the state of his health required immediate specialised treatment by the specialists of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter reffered to as `the AIIMS'), New Delhi, his request for his leave was declined and he was not permitted to leave for Delhi by the concerned authorities of the B.S.F.

(2.) On the other hand the case of the respondents, in brief, is that as the petitioner has to face trial for overstayal of leave, he could not be granted leave and permision to leave for Delhi as requested by him and that he could be granted leave and permission to leave Delhi after the conclusion of the above said trial.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents/material on record. From the documents on record, more particularly the documents/certificates, issued by the concerned doctors of the A.I.I.M.S, the genuinness of which is not disputed even by the respondents, it is apparent that the state of health of the petitioner is such which requires treatment by specialists. Even the respondents in the counter affidavit have admitted that the petitioner for his ailment was not only admitted in the hospital but the concerned doctors of the B.S.F. had advised the petitioner to undergo specialised tests such as T.M.T., Echo-Cardigram etc. In the presence of the above facts, the contention of the petitioner that he requires immediate specialised treatment by the specialists of A.I.I.M.S. at New Delhi for his ailment prima facie does not appear to be ill founded and as such deserves consideration by this Court. On a query raised by us during the hearing of the petition, the learned counsel for the respondent, after seeking instruction from the departmental representatives, who were present in the Court, informed us that there were precedents where in such like cases the delinquent official, during the period of trial, was attached to the place where the trial of such official was held.