Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1012 of 2011 dated 3rd July, 2014 whereby, the writ petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and the decision taken by the respondents not to grant Special Leave was held as valid one. Against this judgment and order, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant (original petitioner) submitted that the petitioner had suffered heart attack in the year 1999 for which he had undergone operation etc. and again he suffered from heart disease and therefore, gone to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi for check up on 1st July, 2009 where he was advised to take rest for two months, again he gone to further check up on 1st September, 2009, again he was advised to take rest for two months, this appellant (original petitioner) again gone to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi for further check up on 2nd November, 2009 and he was advised to take 15 days rest. This appellant again visited Apollo Hospital, New Delhi and again he was advised to take rest for one month. Thus, from 19th June, 2009 till 15th December, 2009 he applied for Special Leave as per clause 6.6 of Coal India Limited Leave Rules, which was denied by the respondents and therefore, this appellant preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1012 of 2011 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 3rd July, 2014. Counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) has relied upon the certificate issued by the Apollo Hospital, New Delhi dated 9th December, 2009 and also has relied upon the certificate issued by the Apollo Hospital, New Delhi dated 27th March, 2010 and has submitted that this appellant was suffering from heart disease. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside and this appellant may be granted Special Leave for the period running from 19th June, 2009 to 15th December, 2009.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents submitted that as per the policy decision taken by the respondents for grant of Special Leave, as per clause 6.6 of the Leave Rules, if this appellant was suffering from severe heart attack and if that certificate given by an Authorized Medical Officer in this circumstances, he was entitled to get Special Leave for six months otherwise, not. The conditions attached under clause 6.6 of the Leave Rules of the respondents had not been fulfilled by the appellant and hence, the application for granting Special Leave to the appellant was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 29/30 January, 2010.;