Allowed¶21

Ramesh Chandra Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2024WRIA/15774/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Medical leave for police personnel injured in road accident; Para 382 Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations governs illness, not accident; treatment in private hospital; reimbursement of medical bills by department; earned leave converted to medical leave; quashing of order dated 08.01.2021; Head Constable; fitness certificate dated 13.10.2019; WRIT - A No. 15774 of 2021; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Manish Kumar, J.; decision date 2.1.2024.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 08.01.2021 quashed with a direction that the period of leave be treated as medical leave to the petitioner in place of earned leave. ¶21

Ramesh Chandra Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 08.01.2021 quashed with a direction that the period of leave be treated as medical leave to the petitioner in place of earned leave.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 08.01.2021 denying medical leave to the petitioner and treating the period of treatment as earned leave is liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Since the department reimbursed the petitioner's medical expenses for treatment in the private hospital, it admitted that the petitioner was medically not fit to perform his duties; hence there was no occasion for the department to deny medical leave.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Para 382 of the U.P. Police Regulations deals with illness, and illness referred therein is distinguished from an accident met by an employee; a person who met with an accident cannot follow the procedure prescribed under Para 382.

¶18

Key takeaways

Where an employee meets with an accident (not being illness), becomes unconscious and is admitted to hospital by passers-by, the procedure contained in Para 382 cannot be said to be applicable, as such accidents require immediate medical treatment and cannot be treated as a case of illness.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Manish Kumar, J. — A police Head Constable met with a road accident on 14.06.2019, sustained multiple fractures, became unconscious and was taken by passers-by to a private hospital (Chandan Hospital); a fitness certificate to resume duty was issued on 13.10.2019, and the department reimbursed his medical bills. Opposite Party No.4, by order dated 08.01.2021, nevertheless denied medical leave and treated the treatment period as earned leave, the State relying on Para 382 of the U.P. Police Regulations. Held: Para 382 prescribes a procedure for under-officers and constables who fall ill; illness is distinguished from an accident, and an employee rendered unconscious in an accident and admitted by passers-by cannot follow that procedure; the department's reimbursement of medical expenses amounted to an admission that the petitioner was medically unfit for duty, leaving no occasion to deny medical leave. Impugned order dated 08.01.2021 quashed; the period of leave directed to be treated as medical leave in place of earned leave. Writ petition allowed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:112

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15774 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Bajpai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors.

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Singh,Alam Singh,Ashok Kumar Shukla

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

¶9

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 08.01.2021 passed by Opposite Party No.4 denying the medical leave to the petitioner and treated the period of treatment since 14.04.2019 to 14.10.2019 as period of earned leave.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is a Head Constable met with an accident on 14.06.2019 and sustained fracture of his right proximal tibia, left Clavicle and multiple rib fracture and petitioner became unconscious at the spot of the accident and thereafter he was brought to the Chandan Hospital by the passers by. After his treatment/ discharge, fitness certificate was given by the doctor to resume the duties on 13.10.2019.

¶11

It is further submitted that the medical bills submitted by the petitioner for his treatment at private hospital namely, Chandan Hospital have been reimbursed by the department.

¶12

It is further submitted that the petitioner had made a representation for grant of medical leave since 14.06.2019 till 13.10.2019 to the Respondent No.04 but in place of sanctioning the medical leave in favour of the petitioner granted earned leave for the period from 14.06.2019 to 14.10.2019 without assigning any reason for the same.

¶13

On the other hand, learned Standing counsel has submitted that the petitioner was treated in private hospital, hence as per Para 382 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations he is not entitled for the medical leave.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply thereto has submitted that as per Para 382 relied by the learned Standing Counsel is neither mentioned in the impugned order and for the first time the said plea has been taken in the counter affidavit and secondly, Para 382 is for the illness not for the major accident met by the government employee.

¶15

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the records of the case and the statutory provision relied by the learned Standing Counsel i.e Para 382 of Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, the position which emerges out in the present case is that the major accident met by the petitioner is undisputed as the department had reimbursed the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for his treatment in the private hospital, meaning hereby, the department is admitting this fact that the petitioner was medically not fit to perform his duties. Hence there is no occasion for the department to deny the medical leave to the petitioner.

¶16

For convenience, Para382 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulation relied by the learned Standing Counsel is quoted hereinbelow:

¶17

"382. Under-officers and constables who fall ill when on duty or who are ill when due to return to duty, must apply for admission to the district police hospital or for treatment at the nearest dispensary, if the police hospital is out of easy reach. The fact of their admission or treatment must be reported to the local Superintendent of Police who unless they are his own subordinates will take immediate steps to communicate the fact to the Superintendent of Police whose subordinates they are. Officers of higher rank are not compelled to apply for admission to police hospitals, but are not relieved of the responsibility while on leave of intimating their intention of obtaining medical certificate to the Superintendent of Police as prescribed above."

¶18

Para 382 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulation relied by the learned Standing counsel talks about the illness, in exact words "Under-officers and constables who fall ill when on duty or who are ill when due to return to duty" here illness referred is distinguished from the accident met by a employee. The person who met with an accident cannot follow the procedure as prescribed under Para 382 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations.

¶19

Unlike in a case of illness of an employee meets with an accident not being illness and who had become unconscious and was admitted in the hospital by passers by, in such cases all the procedure as contained in Para 382 of the Regulations cannot be said to be applicable. Case of such accidents require immediate medical treatment, therefore, it cannot treated as a

¶20

case of illness.

¶21

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.01.2021 is hereby quashed with a direction that the period of leave may be treated as period for medical leave to the petitioner in place of earned leave.

¶22

Order Date :- 2.1.2024 S. Kumar

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramesh Chandra Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Rajagopalan Chakravarthi Madhvan and Another vs Special Court , P.C. Court No. 1 Lucknow and Another

Hanuman Prasad Singh Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Gram Vikas Lko. and Ors.

Indra Raj Sharma and 5 Ors. Vs Union of Inida through Secy. Ministry of Medical and Health Ne

Mohd.Khizir Khan Vs State of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.Home Lko and Ors.

Arvind Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Devp. Lko. andORS.

Kapil Muni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Ors.