1. The petitioner, an employee of the respondent bank, filed the present writ petition questioning the action of the second respondent in treating 103 days of ‘sick leave’ as ‘extraordinary leave’ as illegal and arbitrary. He has sought a consequential direction to the respondent bank to deduct 103 days of his absence from the pool of the ‘sick leave’ rather than treating it as extraordinary leave.

2. The petitioner, having been appointed a clerk-cum-typist on 02.05.1977 in the respondent bank, has been working since September 2001 in the first respondent branch as a Special Assistant. Beginning with May 2005 till July 2007, owing to his occasional illness, the petitioner went on sick leave on different spells ranging from four days to 27 days. Having availed himself of 126 days of sick leave, the petitioner was sanctioned by the authorities 103 days leave in the said category.

3. Explaining why the petitioner had to go on sick leave on each occasion, the petitioner has placed on record that on every occasion when he reported back to duty, he submitted leave applications duly supported by medical certificates. Though the leave was duly sanctioned by the competent authority,