K MURUGESAN Vs. COLLECTOR PERIYAR DISTRICT ERODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the Original Application No.5771 of 1993 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.N81475/92/Pa.A.1, dated 25.05.1993 and quash the same and direct the respondent to regularise the petitioner's absence during the period 13.05.1987 to 04.08.1988 as unearned leave on medical certificate and grant him all consequential benefits, and the same has been transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.18915 of 2006.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Extension Officer (Social Education and Public Relation) Modakurichi Block, Periyar District, by order of the Collector dated 07.05.1987, he was reverted to the category of Rural Welfare Officer, Grade-I for two years. His appeal to the Director of Rural Development, was allowed and that the penalty of reversion was set aside. During the pendency of the appeal, he could not attend the Office due to his illness and took leave from 13.05.1987 to 04.08.1988. On recovery, the petitioner obtained a medical certificate issued by the authorised Government Medical Officers and finally on 05.08.1988, he submitted a report and he was allowed to join duty. Though he had unearned leave of 18 months to his credit, the absence between 13.05.1987 and 04.08.1988 was only 16 months. The District Collector, Erode, the respondent herein granted leave to the petitioner in the following manner: 13.05.1987 to 11.07.1987 " Unearned leave on medical certificate (for 60 days) 12.07.1987 to 08.11.1987 " Earned leave (for 120 days) 09.11.1987 to 04.08.1988 " Leave on loss of pay (for 270 days)

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no memo/communication issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to appear before the medical board. He further submitted that the person alleged to have served the communication on the petitioner's son on 25.08.1987 was not examined in the presence of the petitioner and that he was not given any opportunity to cross examine the said witness and therefore, reliance should not be placed on his evidence. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the certificate issued by the Government Medical Officers to prove his ailment should have been accepted and that the petitioner should have been granted medical leave with salary.