Govt Employee Can't Seek Regularization Of Prolonged Absence As Medical Leave Without Filing Leave Application: AP High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the period during which a government employee remained absent without submitting any leave application could not be treated as medical leave, and that he was not entitled to payment for that period.
In doing so, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta partly allowed a 2006 petition filed by the State authorities challenging an order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal directing regularisation of a government employee's prolonged absence from service.
The Court observed:
“Thus, it is aptly clear that petitioner/applicant was absent from his duties since 01.06.1985 to 16.07.1987 without any leave application or without any reason of his medical illness. There are no reasons to believe that applicant was too ill to write a leave application in the entire period of absence. Thus, the learned Tribunal, while deciding such issue, has lost sight to look into the entire aspect to understand that the period from 01.06.1985 to 16.07.1987 cannot be treated as medical leave. We make it clear that since applicant was absent from his duties without any leave application or that, as he was not medically unfit at that period of time to write a letter of leave, thus, the period from 01.06.1985 to 16.07.1987 cannot be treated as medical leave. He is not entitled any payment for that period".
However for the period between 17.07.1987 to 11.05.1999 the court noted that the authorities did not let the employee join his duty therefore principle of no work no pay was not applicable here. The court said that the observation of the Tribunal in respect of period from 17.07.1987 to 11.05.1999, appears to be correct and justified.
"For the entire period from 17.07.1987 to 11.05.1999, the petitioner was not at fault to perform his duties rather he was not permitted by the present petitioners to join duties. His service was not terminated on that period. Moreover, no proceedings against him for termination of service was initiated or passed by the authorities. Thereby, it tantamounts that act and action of the petitioners itself did not allow applicant to join duties from 17.07.1987 to 11.05.1999. Thus, Principle of “No work no pay” is not applicable in this particular case.”
The issue stemmed from the dispute over regularisation of the respondent-employee's prolonged absence from service.
The employee, a Mechanic Grade-I working under the Panchayat Raj Division, remained absent from duty from 01.06.1985 to 16.07.1987. He submitted a joining report along with a fitness certificate on 17.07.1987. However, the authorities did not permit him to join duty and instead referred him for medical examination.
The Medical Board found his cardiovascular and eye conditions normal and opined that he was not suffering from hypertension, contrary to the medical certificate produced by him. The authorities therefore treated his absence as unauthorised and refused to regularise the period of absence.
After the report of the Medical Board, the applicant did not join the duties. However, after a long period of 13 years, he approached the Administrative Tribunal seeking an order of posting.
Pursuant to the Tribunal's direction to consider his representation in accordance with the rules and the Medical Board's report, he was ultimately issued a posting order in May 1999 and joined the duty.
The Tribunal consequently directed the authorities to treat the period from 1985 to 1987 as medical leave and the period from 1987 onwards to 1999 as duty, besides extending the benefit of revised pay scales and refixing his pay.
Challenging the Tribunal's order, the authorities contended that the employee had absconded from duty without applying for leave and that his absence was wilful and deliberate. They further contended that the entire period could not be regularised and that the principle of “no work no pay” applied, as he had not discharged any duty during the period.
The Court drew a clear distinction between the two periods of absence.
For 01.06.1985 to 16.07.1987, the employee had neither submitted a leave application nor established medical illness. The Medical Board found no hypertension and its report was never challenged. The Court noted that there were no reasons to believe that the employee was too ill to submit a leave application during the entire period of absence. Therefore, the period could not be treated as medical leave and no payment was due.
For 17.07.1987 to 11.05.1999, however, the employee had sought to resume duty but was not permitted to join and was instead referred for medical examination. The authorities also failed to show that he was informed of the Medical Board's result.
As the authorities' own action prevented the employee from resuming duty during this period, the Bench held that the principle of “no work no pay” was not applicable.
The Division Bench therefore upheld the Tribunal's direction to treat the period from 17.07.1987 to 11.05.1999 as duty.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to follow the Tribunal's directions given in the impugned order subject to the court's observation.
Case Title: The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj (RWS) Division, Chittoor District & Others v. B. Narasimha Raju
Case No.: W.P. No. 6584 of 2006
Counsel for Petitioners: GP for Services-II; GP for Services-IV
Counsel for Respondent: K. Ram Reddy