Writ petition seeking sanction of medical leave with pay between 1997 and 2003. High Court upheld Administrative Tribunal order, finding petitioner failed to establish case for relief.
Petition dismissed with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-:(1):-
WP5265-10
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
OfficeNotes,Office Court's or Judge's orders.
MemorandaofCoram,
appearance,Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders.
WRIT PETITION NO.: 5265 OF 2010
Sudam S/o Eknath Deore
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others
***
Mr. S. P. Tiwari, Advocate h/f Mr. N. L.
Chaudhari, Advocate for the Petiitonr.
Mr. S. N. Kendre, A.G.P. for the Respondent/
State Authorities.
***
CORAM:NARESH H. PATIL &
S. B. DESHMUKH,JJ.
DATED: 9th MAY, 2012.
PER COURT:
1.The Petitioner claims that as he was on
medical leave between the year 1997 to 2003
the petitioner's leave shall be sanctioned
with pay. The request was rejected. The
petitionerapproachedMaharashtra
Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by
order dated 18th March, 2010 dismissed the
plea of the petitioner.
2.Learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that certificate of private doctor was
also submitted by the petitioner showing that
he was suffering from Koetics Abdoman. The
WP5265-10
-:(2):-
petitioner ought to have been granted leave
with pay, but the Tribunal committed error in
rejecting the request.
3.Learned A.G.P. supported the order passed
by the Tribunal. He placed reliance on the
affidavit in reply filed. We have perused the
impugned order, reply filed by the State and
other relevant record. We are convinced that
the view adopted by the Tribunal that the
petitioner failed to make out a case for
seeking benefit of the relevant rules for
sanctioning leave with pay. There is no error
noticed in the impugned order. Petition is
dismissed.
[S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] [NARESH H.PATIL J.]
Dt.09/05/2012
ans/WP5265-10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether medical leave from 1997-2003 should be sanctioned with pay despite rejection by Administrative Tribunal.
Whether the High Court is satisfied that Tribunal erred in dismissing the plea for leave with pay.
Sudam S/o Eknath Deore
The State of Maharashtra and others
NARESH H. PATIL
S. B. DESHMUKH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court