Madhyanchal Gramin Bank vs Prem Chand Gupta
2021 Latest Caselaw 7553 MP

                                            1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH,
                   AT JABALPUR

                             (DIVISION BENCH)
                              W.A. No.1042/2021

      Madhyanchal Gramin Bank and others                           .Appellant

                                      Versus
      Prem Chand Gupta                                              Respondents
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Coram :
              Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice.
              Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Presence :
              Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the appellants.
              Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent.
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               JUDGMENT

(18/11/2021)

Per : V.K. Shukla, J.

The present intra court appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of

the Madhya Pradesh Uchch Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal)

Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 05-08-2021 passed

by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.6562/2017, whereby the writ

petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner has been allowed and the

orders dated 27-03-2017 (Annexure P-1) and 13-02-2017 (Annexure P-2)

have been set aside. The appellants/respondents have been directed to

consider the period of absence of the petitioner w.e.f. 16-08-2016 to 12-

12-2016 as on medical leave, if the required leave is available in the

credit of the petitioner and the salary of the said period be also paid to

the petitioner in accordance with law.

2. The respondent/petitioner has filed a petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India questioning the legality and validity of the

orders dated 27-03-2017 and 13-02-2017 whereby the leave claimed by

the petitioner w.e.f. 16-08-2016 to 12-12-2016 has been refused by the

authority to consider the same as medical leave and further the

authority has also refused to grant salary for the said period.

3. The appellant Bank is a Regional Rural Bank constituted under the

provisions of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The

respondent/petitioner was posted at Baronda Branch in Regional Office,

Satna. He was transferred to the Regional Office, Tikamgarh vide order

dated 10-08-2016 and consequently relieved from the Branch on 17-08-

2016 to report at the Regional Office, Tikamgarh on 20-08-2016. He

submitted an application on 16-08-2016 for grant of leave alongwith a

medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Primary Medical

Centre, Majhgawan dated 15-08-2016.

3. The respondent/petitioner went on indefinite medical leave and

remained absent from duty from 16-08-2016 to 09-12-2016. According to

them even though he was fit to join, he did not join at the transferred

place of posting. However, after grant of stay, he immediately joined.

Looking to his conduct and the medical certificate being vague, he was

directed by the Management to produce certificate from Medical Board

vide order dated 02-01-2017. He did not appear before the Medical

Board nor did he produce any such certificate from the Medical Board.

The Bank vide order dated 27-03-2017 and order dated 13-02-2017

refused the medical leave applied by the respondent/petitioner and the

period of leave from 16-08-2016 to 09-12-2016 has been treated as

leave without pay on principles of 'no work no pay'.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single

Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground that there is no

requirement of production of the certificate from the Medical Board

under the Regulations, and therefore, rejection of the medical leave on

that ground is illegal. The learned Single Judge has failed to consider

Regulation 62(2) Proviso (iii) which provides that sick leave or medical

leave may be availed of only on production of medical certificate issued

by a recognized practitioner acceptable to the Bank. It is further

contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that the

production of medical certificate from a recognized practitioner alone is

not enough, it must be acceptable to the Bank. The Management

considered the various certificates produced the respondent/petitioner

and was not satisfied with genuineness thereof and therefore, asked him

to produce medical certificate from the Medical Board to show that the

medical certificates filed by the respondent/petitioner were not acceptable

to the Bank.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner submitted that the

learned Single Judge has rightly held that there was no statutory

provision for production of medical certificate from the Medical Board.

He submitted that the respondent/petitioner was sick and was advised rest

for 37 days from 16-08-2016 to 20-09-2016 and therefore, the learned

Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition directing to grant

medical leave to the respondent/petitioner and pay the salary for the said

period.

6. We have perused the medical certificate (Annexure P-16) issued by

the Medical Officer on 15-08-2016 stating that he was advised rest for 37

days from 16-08-2016 to 20-09-2016. Nothing has been mentioned about

the ailment of the respondent/petitioner in the said certificate. He then

filed a medical certificate of one Dr.T.K. Tripathi. It appears that he was

examined by one Dr.S.K.Verma, Block Medical Officer, Majhgawan on

30-10-2016. Dr. Verma advised rest from 31-10-2016 to 09-12-2016. The

said document is dated 31-10-2016. The respondent/petitioner produced

a medical certificate of fitness issued by the District Medical Board. The

said certificate is about fitness and not about sickness. He then

submitted a certificate of fitness issued on 05-02-2017. The Medical

Board having examined him, found him fit to resume duty.

7. We asked the learned counsel for respondent/petitioner to produce

treatment papers and prescriptions etc. in support of his medical

certificate that he was actually ailing for the said period and to remove

the doubts about the genuineness of the certificate.

8. Learned counsel for respondent/petitioner failed to produce any

prescription, treatment papers etc. to support that the medical certificates

produced by him are genuine certificates. The various certificates

produced by the respondent/petitioner was not found to be acceptable by

the appellant/Bank. It was within the domain of the competent authority

to ask the respondent/petitioner to produce medical certificate from the

Medical Board in order to satisfy itself.

9. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the learned Single Judge has

erred while setting aside the order passed by the appellant-Bank refusing

to grant medical leave to the respondent/petitioner and directing for grant

of medical leave for the said period on payment of salary.

10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order passed by the

learned Single Judge is set aside. No order as to costs.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is also disposed of.

      (RAVI MALIMATH)                       (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
        CHIEF JUSTICE                               JUDGE

hsp


        Digitally signed by
        HARSAHAI
        PATERIYA
        Date: 2021.11.24
        15:44:20 +05'30'