Allowed¶¶19

Prashant Krishnarao Upadeo v. Vidharbha Konkan-Gramin Bank Thr. Its Chairman, Nagpur and Another

Leave entitlement – sick leave vs extraordinary leave

Bombay HC7 Apr 2025WP/299/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Writ Petition No. 299 of 2025, Prashant Krishnarao Upadeo v. Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank, Nagpur; decided 07-04-2025 by Avinash G. Gharote & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.; keywords: sick leave, extraordinary leave, Regulation 62(2) second proviso clause (iii), medical certificate dated 26.2.2019, service rules notification dated 28.10.2013, consequential benefits; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to treat the petitioner's application as an application for sick leave, grant it in terms of the aforesaid rule (rule 62(2), 2nd Proviso clause III), and release all consequential benefits resulting therefrom. ¶¶19

Prashant Krishnarao Upadeo Vs Vidharbha Konkan-Gramin Bank Thr. Its Chairman, Nagpur and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:3638-DB

¶2

1 58wp299.2025..odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 299 OF 2025

¶5

(Prashant Krishnarao Upadeo Vs. Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank, Nagpur and anr)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

and Registrar's orders

¶10

¶11

Mr. R.R. Deo, Advocate for petitioner.

¶12

Mr. V.A. Bramhe, Advocate for respondent No.1

¶13

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 07-04-2025

¶15

We have heard the petition finally on 20.1.2025 and recorded the following position.

¶16

It is contended that though the petitioner had applied for sick leave in terms of Regulation 62 of the Service Regulations (Pg.55), instead thereof extraordinary leave has been granted to the petitioner, which could not have been done as the reason for not granting sick leave, which is nonsubmission of hospital bills, is not justified, in view of Clause (iii) of the 2nd proviso to Regulation 62(2) of the Service Regulations which mandates that the sick or medical leave may be availed of only on production of medical certificate issued by a recognized medical practitioner acceptable to the Bank, which was accordingly submitted (Pg.62). Issue notice for final disposal, returnable on 03/02/2025 .

¶17

Mr. Bramhe, learned counsel for respondent No.1 does not dispute, that the service rules governing the petitioner in terms of the notification dated 28.10.2013 vide rule 62(2)2^nd Proviso clause III permits sick or medical leave to be availed of, only on the production of the medical certificate, issued by recognized medical practitioner, acceptable to the bank. He also does not

¶18

2 58wp299.2025..odt

¶19

dispute that the certificate dated 26.2.2019 (p62) satisfies the said requirement. That being the position, there was no reason for the respondents to have denied the sick leave to the petitioner, and in its place granting extraordinary leave, in view of which, we allow the petition by directing respondents to treat application of the petitioner, as an application for sick leave and grant the same in terms of the aforesaid rule and also release all consequential benefits as a result thereof.

¶20

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶21

Belkhede

Prashant Krishnarao Upadeo v. Vidharbha Konkan-Gramin Bank Thr. Its Chairman, Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Krishnarao Upadeo v. Vidharbha Konkan-Gramin Bank Thr. Its Chairman, Nagpur and Another

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

Sadanand Narsing Tikar vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Others

Shaikh Munna Shaikh Zameer Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretaty Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Mohd. Iftekhar S/O Mohd. Quddoos Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Shrikrishna S/O Uddhavrao Sonwane and Another vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Sanjay Sheshrao Mante vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mumbai and Others

Dhanraj S/O Sakharam Bhowre vs Dist. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Wardha, Thr. Research Officer and Member Secy. and Ors.