K SIVAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the Original Application and the present writ petition are as follows :- THE present petitioner was working as Grade II Constable under the Police Department. He had applied for grant of medical leave on 20.6.2003 as he was having constant respiratory problem on account of the fact that he was posted in Traffic Enforcement Wing. Accordingly, he availed medical leave from 20.6.2003 till 25.7.2003. THEreafter, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Medical Board of the General Hospital at Chennai. For the aforesaid purpose, he was admitted as an inpatient and remained in the hospital till 14.8.2003, on which date the petitioner was directed to get admitted in Ward No.19 of the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), Kilpauk, Chennai. However, the petitioner apparently desisted. On 18.8.2003, Respondent No.3 issued a memo indicating that, unless the petitioner got himself admitted in IMH along with his wife, departmental proceedings would be initiated. At that stage, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2831 of 2003 before the State Administrative Tribunal (in short "Tribunal"). During pendency of the Original Application, by an interlocutory order dated 5.2.2004, the Tribunal directed the present petitioner to appear before the Director of the IMH for the purpose of evaluation of his mental health. After examination of the petitioner, the hospital authorities did not find any thing unusual with the petitioner. Subsequently, the Tribunal has issued a direction directing the Department to allow the petitioner to rejoin duty. However, while doing so, the Tribunal directed that "the period of absence so far, shall be treated as unearned leave on Medical certificate with full pray, provided he has not exhausted the leave under this head". It is only this latter portion of the order passed by the Tribunal, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) IT is to be noted that the Department has not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the Department has treated the period of leave vide proceedings dated 12.7.2004 as follows :- 20.06.2003 to 17.09.2003 - 90 days UEL on M.L. 18.09.2003 to 12.02.2004 - 148 days EL on M.L. 13.02.2004 to 30.06.2004 - 78 days LWP on M.L.