Facts
The petitioner, a Railway employee, was admitted to B.R. Singh Hospital on January 14, 2020, for an eye operation
Source reference: p. 2He remained on sick leave until April 18, 2022, during which time his vision failed to improve despite treatment
Source reference: p. 4Upon being discharged from the sick list on April 19, 2022, a Medical Board recommended his absorption into a category not requiring visual activities, leading to his posting as an 'Office Superintendent'
Source reference: p. 2, 9The petitioner filed a representation requesting that the period from January 14, 2020, to April 18, 2022, be treated as "on duty" with full service benefits
Source reference: p. 1-2The respondent authorities rejected this on May 27, 2022, citing a lack of rules for regularizing sick periods as duty
Source reference: p. 2The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Kolkata Bench, dismissed the petitioner’s original application (OA 350/01223/2022) on August 29, 2023, leading to the current writ petition
Source reference: p. 1Issues
1. Whether the period of medical treatment/sick leave (14.01.2020 to 18.04.2022) can be regularized as "on duty" under the relevant Railway Medical and Establishment Manuals
Source reference: p. 5, 102. Whether the respondent authorities' failure to release the petitioner from the sick list within the six-month period prescribed by Clause 561(A)(4) entitles him to treat the entire period as "on duty"
Source reference: p. 5, 10Law Applied
Clause 561 of the Medical Examination of Candidates for Appointment to the Gazetted Railway Service, which stipulates that if temporary light duty cannot be provided, an employee should be kept on the sick list for a period not exceeding six months
Source reference: p. 6-7Chapters 1301 to 1303 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), Volume 1, which mandates that employees acquiring disability during service should be shifted to alternative posts with the same pay scale and service benefits, or kept in "special supernumerary posts" if an alternative post is not immediately available
Source reference: p. 7-8Reasoning
The Court examined the petitioner’s argument that since Clause 561(A)(4) limits the waiting period on the sick list to six months, any excess period caused by administrative inaction should be treated as "on duty"
Source reference: p. 5The Court observed that the Medical Board found the petitioner unfit for 'Aye', 'Bee', or 'Cey' medical categories due to permanent visual impairment
Source reference: p. 9The Court reasoned that even if the Railway had adhered to the six-month timeline and placed him in an alternative or supernumerary post under Clauses 1302 and 1303 of the IREM, the petitioner would have remained unable to perform any actual work during the disputed period due to his complete medical disability at the time
Source reference: p. 10The Court noted that the petitioner lacked adequate leave credits for the period of absence, and no specific Rule of Law or Leave Rule was produced to permit regularizing a sick period as "on duty" in the absence of such credits
Source reference: p. 10-11Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to have the sick period (14.01.2020 to 18.04.2022) treated as "on duty" because he had no leave to his credit and failed to demonstrate any legal provision allowing for such regularization during a period where he was physically incapable of performing duties
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT’s order; All pending applications were dismissed and interim orders vacated
Source reference: p. 11Original Court PDF
MD. NAZRUL ISLAMvsUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in