Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J.
Bhavana Ramesh, W/o. H. Narayanan and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Secretary To Government, General Education Department and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 32120 Of 2023
Decided On : 05-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. S.M.PREM P.RAMACHANDRAN (PALAKKAD)
For the Respondent: BY ADV. SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
IMPORTANT POINT
Failure to follow procedural rules for medical examination in leave applications results in unresolved employment status and salary issues, necessitating regularization.
Headnote:
(A) Kerala Service Rules - Rule 118(a) and 118(c) - Leave Without Allowances - Petitioners applied for extended leave on medical grounds but were only granted 120 days without proper medical examination as required by the rules - The court found that the procedure for medical examination was not followed, leading to a delay in regularizing the leave. (Paras 1 - 18 )
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - The court noted that penalties imposed on the petitioners must be addressed appropriately in light of their leave status and that they have remedies available to challenge the penalties. (Paras 16 - 18 )
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought Leave Without Allowances on medical grounds, but the Assistant Educational Officer failed to follow the proper procedures for medical examination, leading to unresolved leave status and salary issues.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondents to consider the regularization of the leave period and to pay the petitioners their eligible salary and arrears.
Issues: The main issues included the proper procedure for medical examination for leave approval and the status of the petitioners' leave and salary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the procedural rules for medical examinations and the importance of regularizing leave appropriately.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions for regularization of leave and payment of salary.
JUDGMENT :
(N. NAGARESH, J.)
The 1st petitioner availed Leave Without Allowances (LWA) on medical grounds from 27.05.2005 to 26.05.2006, while working as UPST in AUP School, Nhangathur.
2. The 2nd petitioner while working as UPST and petitioners 3 & 4 while working as LPST in AUP School, Nhangathur availed Leave Without Allowances on medical grounds from 31.05.2005 to 30.05.2006.
3. The 4th respondent – Assistant Educational Officer sought second medical opinion in terms of Rule 118(a) of Part I KSR from the DMO (ISM) Palakkad, on the Medical Certificates produced by the petitioners for availing Leave Without Allowances. The DMO (ISM) Palakkad intimated the petitioners to be present on 25.08.2005 to have them medically examined as per Ext.P1 dated 01.08.2005.
4. The petitioners were medically examined on 25.08.2005 by a panel of three Doctors at the District Medical Office (ISM) Palakkad. Medical Reports dated 25.08.2005 in respect of each petitioner were forwarded to the Assistant Educational Officer, who in turn transmitted the same to the petitioners through the Headmaster of AUP School, Nhangathur as evidenced by Exts.P2 to P5.
5. The 4th respondent - Assistant Educational Officer issued Ext.P6 letter dated 22.09.2005 directing the Headmaster to sanction Leave Without Allowances for 120 days to the petitioners relying on Exts.P2 to P5.
6. On 25.09.2005, the petitioners submitted subsequent applications for Leave Without Allowances supported by fresh Medical Certificates. The 1st petitioner applied for Leave Without Allowances from 25.09.2005 to 26.05.2006. Petitioners 2 to 4 applied for Leave Without Allowances from 25.09.2005 to 30.05.2006.
7. On 12.01.2006, the 4th respondent – Assistant Educational Officer straight away referred the case of petitioners 1, 3 & 4 to the Director of Health Services, Indian Systems of Medicine, Thiruvananthapuram, for medical opinion in terms of Rule 118(c) of Part I KSR (Exts.P7, P9 & P10).
8. On 13.01.2006, the Assistant Educational Officer referred the case of the 2nd petitioner to the Director of Health Services, Indian Systems of Medicine, Thiruvananthapuram, for medical opinion in terms of Rule 118(c) of Part I KSR (Exts.P7, P9 & P10).
9. No action pursuant to Exts.P7 to P10 has ever been taken. On receipt of applications on 25.09.2005 for Leave Without Allowances supported by fresh Medical Certificates from the petitioners, the same were straight away referred for placing before the Medical Board for second medical opinion in terms of Rule 118(c) of Part I KSR, to the Director of Health Services (ISM) Thiruvananthapuram, without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 118(a) of Part I KSR.
10. There was no proper requisition under Rule 118(c) of Part I KSR to the Director of Health Services (ISM) to place it before the Medical Board. There is no second medical opinion from the DMO (ISM) Palakkad, obtained in terms of Rule 118(a) of Part I KSR on the Medical Certificates submitted on 25.09.2005 along with applications for Leave Without Allowances to constitute a Medical Board to have the petitioners medically examined by the Medical Board as contemplated under Rule 118(c) of Part I KSR, contend the petitioners.
11. The principle laid down by this Court in Rajan v. State of Kerala [ 2005 KHC 43 ] applies on all fours to the present case, urged the petitioners. There is no point in relegating the petitioners for a second opinion at this distance of time. Admittedly, the petitioners had joined duty on 05.06.2006 and they continue without any break in service as UPST/LPST in AUP School, Nhangathur.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.
13. The petitioners state that the one year Leave Without Allowance applied for by them ought to have been granted and the leave should not have been confined to 120 days. Though there was a direction to the petitioners and as per Exts.P7 to P10 applications were forwarded to the
