Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent -BCCL. The petitioner's claim for special leave has been rejected by the impugned letter dated 29/30 January, 2010 and further, vide letter dated 25.02.2010 issued by the respondent No. 6, Head of Department (EE), BCCL, Dhanbad, Annexure -6 and 8 respectively. The petitioner made an application on 18.06.2009, Annexure -1 indicating severe perspiration, vertigo, breathlessness and chest pain while informing the General Manager, EJ Area that he was proceeding for Emergency treatment for which leave may be granted till recovery.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, after initial treatment, he was referred to AIIMS New Delhi for evaluation of his health condition vide Annexure -11 dated 04.07.2009 issued by the respondent -BCCL. The petitioner however got himself treated at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital. After having undergone treatment about six months, he was declared fit to join duties w.e.f. 16.12.2009 as per the certificate dated 09.12.2009 issued by the hospital enclosed as Annexure -14 series which also indicates that he was suffering from coronary artery disease with severe dysfunction and was declared fit to resume duties as aforesaid. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that in terms of the regulation governing the leave condition of the employees of BCCL, he was entitled for special leave. Annexure -12 has been relied upon which provides for the special leave and indicates that the disease for which special leave on full pay for a total period not exceeding six months during the entire service may be granted to the employee on production of medical certificate from authorized medical officer. The petitioner is said to have produced medical certificate on 27.03.2010 issued from Indraprastha Apollo Hospital. Perusal of the said certificate, however, indicates that he had suffered major heart attack in the year 1999, which had severely affected the pumping function of his heart. He was also advised rest from 01.07.2009 to 15.12.2009 keeping in view his critical health condition. The respondents have, however, after examination of his claim, rejected the same on the ground that the medical condition of the petitioner does not warrant grant of special leave which could be granted in the prescribed category of disease such as severe heart attack, by pass and open heart surgery and case of the petitioner did not fall in these categories of the disease. However, the entire medical bills have been reimbursed by the respondents but no special leave can be granted to him. It is submitted that however, doctors of the respondent -company examined the petitioner's prescription and treatment papers and again after review also, find that the petitioner's disease do not fall in the specified disease for sanction of special leave under para 6.6 of the Leave Rules of CIL. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on record. The documents, which have been enclosed to the writ petition specifically certificate dated 09.12.2009 show that he was suffering from coronary artery disease with severe dysfunction for which he had undergone treatment in Indraprastha Apollo Hospital. However, ether certificates, Annexure -13 dated 27.03.2010 indicate that he had suffered major heart attack in the year 1999 and not in the year 2009. From the prescriptions which are annexed to the writ petition, the petitioner has not able to show that he was diagnosed severe heart attack or had undergone by pass or open heart surgery in Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, New Delhi. The prescription and treatment papers of the petitioner were examined by the Medical Officer of the respondent -Company who did not find that the said medical condition of the petitioner falls in the category of severe heart attack or that he had undergone by pass and open heart surgery. Petitioner's medical bills have, however, been reimbursed by the respondents. Therefore, I do not find that the petitioner is able to make out a case for grant of special leave for the said treatment for which he remained on leave for the period of six months apparently from 19.06.2009 to 15.12.2009. Therefore, no infirmity can be found in the matter. The Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.;