KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGTHAN Vs. SANT KUMAR NAHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") passed in Original Application No. 784/1999, dated 21-10-2002. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Tribunal has wrongly allowed the Original Application, filed by the respondent No. 1, and granted relief of special disability leave and consequential benefits thereto.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1, who is a Safai Karmachari working in Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, G. C. F. , Jabalpur, was assaulted by one Gulab Singh on 18-2-1997 at 9. 00 a. m. resulting in severe head and leg injuries on account of which, the respondent No. 1 had to be hospitalized and, therefore, he could not attend his duties from 18-2-1997 to 2-3-1997 and for a further period of 10 weeks, which was advised by the doctor, after his discharge from the hospital. The respondent No. 1 applied for special disability leave for this period, which was rejected by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the rejection, the respondent No. 1 had approached the Tribunal by filing T. A. No. 21/1999. The Tribunal vide order dated 19-8-1999 directed the petitioners to conduct an enquiry within a period of six weeks and to decide the issue. After enquiry the petitioners again rejected the application of the respondent No. 1 for grant of special disability leave. The respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the rejection, filed O. A. No. 784/1999 which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 21-10-2002.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the interpretation of Rule 44 (1) of Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") as made by the Tribunal based on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, B. E. S. T. Undertaking, Bombay v. Mrs. Agnes , AIR1964 SC 193 , (1964 )66 BOMLR367 , [1963 (7 )FLR310 ], (1963 )II LLJ615 SC , [1964 ]3 SCR930 is incorrect as the judgment of the Apex Court related to the Workmen's Compensation Act and the analogy of that Act cannot be borrowed for interpretation of Rule 44 (1) of the Rules. Learned Counsel on the contrary has relied upon the judgment as reported in the case of Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Francis De Costa ,, 1996 ACJ1281 , AIR1997 SC 432 , [1996 (74 )FLR2326 ], (1997 )2 GLR1336 , JT1996 (8 )SC 118 , 1996 (2 )KLT799 (SC ), 1996 Lablc2720 , (1997 )I LLJ34 SC , (1997 )2 MLJ70 (SC ), 1996 (0 )MPLJ1093 , 1996 (6 )SCALE473 , (1996 )6 SCC1 , [1996 ]supp5 SCR797 , 1997 (1 )SLJ1 (SC ), to canvass his arguments that the Rules is to be interpreted restrictively and strictly. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the grant of special disability leave is restricted to cases where the disability is a result, of injuries received by the employee in the discharge of his official duties only as provided by Rule 44 (1) of the Rules and, as the respondent No. 1 did not receive injuries while discharging his official duties, the benefit of Rule 44 (1) of the Rules can not be granted to him.