In the absence of sufficient leave credit and specific enabling service rules, an employee cannot claim retrospective regularization of medical absence as 'on duty' service when they were medically incapacitated and unable to perform job functions during the period in question.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. The subject matter of the instant writ petition as filed under Section 226/227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 29.08.2023 as passed in OA 350/ 01223/ 2022 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Tribunal’ in short). By the impugned order the said Tribunal declined to entertain the prayers of the original applicant/ writ petitioner herein for regularizing the medical treatment period from 14.01.2020 to 18.04.2022 as on duty and for releasing of service benefits for the aforesaid period by the respondent authorities.

2. At the time of hearing, Mr. Ray, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original applicant/ writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the copy of the representation dated 17.05.2022 as submitted by the original applicant/ writ petitioner with the respondent no. 4 authority requesting the said authority to treat his sick period from 14.01.2020 to 18.04.2022 as on duty with a further request to disburse payment for the aforementioned period as payable to him. It is submitted that by a communication dated 27.05.2022 the respondent no. 5 authority declined to concede with the request as made by the writ petitioner in absence of any rules for regularization of sick period (RMC) as on duty.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Ray that from the materials as placed before this Court it would reveal that on 14.01.2020 the writ petitioner was admitted at B. R. Singh Hospital, Kolkata for an eye operation and he continued to be in the sick leave from 14.01.2020 to 18.04.2022 and was discharged from the sick leave on 19.04.2022 with a recommendation of the medical board to absorb in a category where visual activities are not required and accordingly, he was posted as ‘Office Superintendent’ under C&W/MLDT.

4. Drawing attention to page nos. 89 to 91 of the instant writ petition (Annexure P-2) being a copy of “Medical Examination of Candidates for Appointment to the Gazetted Railway Service”, it is submitted by Mr. Ray that Clauses 559 and 560 of Section F thereof deal with the types of medical recommendations and the authority competent to make such recommendations. It is further submitted that Clause 561(A) of Section F deals with recommendation for light duty and Clause 561 (B) deals with certificate of decategorisation or change of occupation. It is further submitted by Mr. Ray that Clause 561(A)(4) postulates that in the event competent authority indicates its inability to provide temporary light duty or change of occupation, the employee should be kept on sick leave till he is fit for duty or is decategorised and the period of waiting should not exceed 6 months.

5. It is further submitted by Mr. Ray that Clause 561(B) further postulates that if after expiry of the period of 6 months granted under the certificate of recommendation of light duty, the employee concerned is considered by the railway doctor medically unfit for the duties of original post but not unfit for service on the other posts, the competent medical officer would issue necessary certificate in the prescribed form for a suitable permanent alternate appointment either in the same medical category or in a lower category.

6. In his next limb of submission, Mr. Ray draws attention of this court to the “Indian R