Ramesh Chandra Bhatt vs State Of Uttarakhand And Other
2021 Latest Caselaw 3687 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2784 of 2017


Ramesh Chandra Bhatt                                    ............. Petitioner

                                   Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and other                     ............ Respondents


Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, Additional Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. V.S. Rawat,
Brief Holder for the State/respondents.


                              JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Petitioner seeks mandamus directing the respondents to pay the pension to the petitioner along with arrears.

2. The petitioner was a Clerk in the respondents department, who retired on 30.04.2015 from the post of Administrative Officer.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working with the respondent no.4 in the year 2012, where he was posted by an order dated 18.10.2012. But, the respondent no.4 never allowed him to join or sit in the office. Petitioner made various requests, he roamed around the office of the respondent no.4, but, he was not allowed to work. It caused a lots of embarrassment. The petitioner on 20.11.2012 submitted his conditional resignation letter to allow him work or to accept his resignation. Subsequently, with the intervention of higher officers, the petitioner was allowed to join on 02.01.2013. The petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2015. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from him for the absence from duties from 20.11.2012 to 02.01.2013 and the petitioner's pension was not released. Petitioner filed a claim before the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") being Claim Petition No.23/DB of 2016,

Ramesh Chand Bhatt vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (for short, "the claim"), which was settled in the National Lok Adalat on 12.11.2016 by the following order:-

"Present: Sri L.K. Maithani, Counsel For the petitioner.

Sri U.C. Dhaundiyal, A.P.O.

For the respondnts.

Today the case was put up before the National Lok Adalat. In the present petition the petitioner has retired and his retiral benefit s are not released as yet. Both the parties have pointed out that due to dispute regarding absence of the petitioner from 20-11-2012 to 02-01-2013, sanction of retiral benefits is pending.

Both the parties have agreed that the petitioner will submit an application for sanction of medical leave and thereafter the State/Respondents will sanction the leave as per rules. On the basis of this, both the parties have made a compromise to dispose of the case accordingly.

The case is therefore, disposed of in the light of the above compromise. Let the record be consigned."

4. The petitioner again approached for the pension, but he was asked to submit his fitness certificate. Petitioner informed that it is not possible to him to get a fitness certificate for the year 2013 in the year 2016, but, it was not considered. With these averments, petitioner came before this Court claiming pension.

5. The State has filed its counter affidavit. Essentially what is objected by the State is that since the petitioner did not file the fitness certificate in support of his medical leave application, the leave could not have been sanctioned to him as per Rules. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, the State has averred that according to fundamental Rule 81(b)(2) and Subsidiary Rules 157(2), as contained in the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Part 2 to 4, the medical leave can be granted on the basis of medical certificate and such medical leave can be granted if the such medical certificate is issued by the authorized Medical Officer.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has applied the medical leave as per the settlement arrived between the State and the petitioner in the claim, preferred before the Tribunal. But now, the State seeks fitness certificate of the year 2013, which the petitioner cannot obtain. Therefore, it is submitted that the State be directed to deem the petitioner fit on 02.01.2013, when he resumed his duties, in view of the settlement, which was arrived at in the claim preferred by the petitioner or the petitioner may be directed to submit his fitness today.

8. Learned State counsel would submit that medical leave was to be sanctioned as per Rules, as such, in view of the settlement in the National Lok Adalat on 12.11.2016 in the claim.

9. Undoubtedly, leaves are sanctioned as per Rules and in case of medical leaves, first and foremost, a person applying for such leaves has to show that he is, in fact, in need of such leave and for that purpose some medical certificates are required from the authorized doctor. Thereafter, once a person intends to resume his duties after fitness, the Rules provide for fitness from the authorized doctor also. But, can such Rules be made strictly applicable in the instant case of the petitioner, who, according to the petitioner forced not to join the services by the respondent no.4 from 18.10.2012 till 02.01.2013, when he was subsequently permitted to join the services with the intervention of higher officers. If it is so, it would be asking something, which is not possible.

10. In the claim before the Tribunal, a settlement was arrived. It is not that the petitioner did not join his duties on 02.01.2013. It is not the case of the State that the petitioner was not fit to resume the duties. He worked. The only question of his unauthorized absence, was validated by the resolution arrived on 12.11.2016 in the National Lok Adalat in the claim before the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is of the view that asking the petitioner to submit fitness certificate of the year 2013 in the year 2016 would be an attempt by the State to nullify the

settlement arrived on 12.11.2016 in the claim petition before the Tribunal in National Lok Adalat. In such case, this Court has no option, but to conclude that the State shall consider as if the petitioner was fit when he resumed his duties on 02.01.2013. Now the petitioner does not need to file any fitness certificate to obtain the medical leave for the period between 20.11.2012 to 02.01.2013. The writ petition deserves to be allowed accordingly.

11. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

12. The respondents shall consider the medical leave application of the petitioner assuming that fitness certificate has been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner shall not be required to submit of fitness certificate. After sanctioning the medical leave, the respondents shall ensure that the petitioner is paid arrears of pension within a period of two months and he is paid pension regularly.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.09.2021 Sanjay