Absence supported by medical certificates from empanelled private hospitals cannot be treated as dies non.

The applicant, a Post Master General aged 56, challenged orders dated 31.05.2016, 31.10.2017, and 20.01.2022, which treated his period of absence from 31.12.2014 to 26.04.2015 as dies non.

The respondents' primary justification for this classification was that the medical certificate submitted by the applicant for earned leave (on medical grounds) was issued by 'Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute'.

According to the respondents, this private facility was neither a government hospital nor empanelled under the CGHS Delhi per an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 05.04.2013.

The applicant contended that he had sufficient leave to his credit and that the hospital was indeed empanelled.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in treating the applicant's period of absence as dies non based on the alleged non-empanelment of the medical institutions providing treatment.

2. Whether the medical certificates issued by Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute and Kalra Hospital were valid for the purpose of regularizing leave.

The Tribunal applied the principles governing the regularization of leave under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules and the empanelment criteria for Health Care Organizations (HCOs) under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) as detailed in OMs dated 05.04.2013 and 01.10.2014.

The court also adhered to the principle that administrative orders must stand on the grounds mentioned within them and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons during litigation.

The Tribunal found the respondents' contention that the hospital was not empanelled to be factually incorrect.

Although Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute did not appear in the initial list of 42 hospitals in the OM dated 01.10.2014, it was listed at serial number 43 in the updated compendium of empanelled hospitals covering the period from 01.10.2014 onwards.

The Tribunal noted that empanelment is a "continuous process".

Regarding 'Kalra Hospital' (where the applicant obtained his fitness certificate), the respondents argued it was only empanelled for specific diseases not suffered by the applicant; however, the Tribunal rejected this argument because such a ground was never mentioned in the original impugned order.

Since the documents were not found to be manipulated and the hospitals were recognized under CGHS, the Tribunal concluded that the respondents' action in treating the period as dies non was "misconceived".

The court directed the respondents to treat the period from 31.12.2014 to 26.04.2015 as commuted leave based on the submitted medical records.

The applicant was granted all consequential benefits, with a directive for compliance within eight weeks of receipt of the order.