MRS. ANURADHA SHARMA Vs. DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim in this petition rests on whether the petitioner has a right to commuted leave on medical grounds for 58 days broken into two parts of 24 and 34 days each. The claim has been rejected by the impugned communication. In challenge to the order and to fortify her claim, the petitioner relies on Rule 8.119 (c) read with Rule 8.119 (a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970 ("1970 Rules") as applicable to Haryana. The commuted leave is sought on medical grounds. The existence of medical reasons is not disputed. If she has right to commuted leave on medical grounds she would be entitled to leave salary admissible under Rules 8.119 and 8.122 Volume-I, Part-1 of the 1970 Rules. The petitioner serves in the Education Department, Haryana her parent State but has been on deputation with the UT Administration as an Associate Professor of Chemistry teaching in the Post Graduate Government College, Sector-11, Chandigarh. In the month of December 2013 the petitioner was diagnosed with Stage-III, Colo-Rectal Cancer. She has undergone surgery, extensive Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy over a prolonged period of time. The surgery was performed in Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon with permission to proceed for treatment. Thereafter, she had to take leave for her Chemotherapy which was sanctioned for 7 days from January 21, 2014 to January 27, 2014. The college permitted ex post facto leave vide order dated February 13, 2014 but the order bears no clarity whether the leave sanctioned was earned leave or extraordinary leave or of what kind. In the line of treatment, she underwent several radiotherapy sessions followed by a second surgical intervention in October 2014, this time, at the PGI Chandigarh. She was unwell for 20 days following surgery and had to be re-admitted for treatment for 34 days from October to November 2014. This was covered on medical grounds. Her request to Director of Higher Education, Chandigarh Administration that she may be granted Extraordinary Leave for the period was found not admissible and instead she was asked if she wanted commuted leave on medical grounds. The petitioner clarified in her reply stating categorically that she really meant commuted leave under Rule 8.119 (c) read with Rule 8.119 (a) of the 1970 Rules and not Extraordinary Leave as earlier prayed. She further emphasised that she was seeking commuted leave of 58 days on medical grounds. Her request was accepted by the Chandigarh Administration when it granted her commuted leave on medical grounds for the period 34 days i.e. from October 16, 2014 to November 18, 2014 vide order dated December 29, 2014. There was correspondence exchanged between respondent DHE and the Principal of the respondent College where prima facie opinion formed was that petitioner was not entitled to commuted leave on medical grounds. Despite the order of the competent authority Chandigarh Administration, the College did not implement the decision despite order dated December 24, 2014 standing steadfastly in her favour. However, no order was passed qua the remaining 24 days of commuted leave. Instead, the college authorities at Chandigarh have asked, after sanction of leave vide order dated December 24, 2014 by memo dated February 26, 2015 (P-8) for supply of a copy of the relevant rules which show the non-entitlement of the petitioner for commuted leave on medical grounds for the periods in question. The Principal has intimated to the DHE vide letter dated October 03, 2015 the following:-

(2.) It is against this memo that the petitioner has approached this Court for directions in her favour setting aside the impugned order dated October 03, 2015 (Annex P-9). The DHE Chandigarh Administration has neither agreed nor disagreed with the advise of the Principal and the matter rests there. The only decision in writing remains the order dated December 24, 2014 (P-7) issued by the Chandigarh Administration in the Education Department sanctioning commuted leave on medical grounds under Rule 8.119 of the 1970 Rules for the period of 34 days.

(3.) On notices issued by this Court to the respondents calling for response, a short reply has been filed by the Joint Director, Colleges O/o Director, Higher Education, Haryana being the representative of the principal employer of the petitioner, the Haryana Government. It is not disputed that in terms of the stipulations contained in the deputation order dated January 20, 1987 issued by the Chandigarh Administration the allocation of leave salary and pension charges will be regulated by the rules of the parent Government. Therefore, the final call has to be taken by the Chandigarh Administration albeit in tandem with the Haryana Government Higher Education Department in accordance with rules.