Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Paramjit Kaur vs D/O Post on 8 September, 2025
1- O.A. No. 262/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/262/2020
Pronounced on: 08.09.2025
Reserved on: 14.08.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Paramjit Kaur w/o Sh. Harjeet Singh, aged 49 years, r/o #183-A/61-A,
Main Bhagu Road, Bathinda working as Sorting Assistant (Group-C) at
S.R.O. Bathinda, Punjab.
.... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Jaswinder Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication and
Information Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad
Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director Postal Services (HQ), Office of the Chief Post Master
General, Punjab Circle, Sandesh Bhawan, Sector-17 E, Chandigarh-
160017.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, RMS LD Division, Ludhiana-
Digitally 141008.
signed by
MAMTA
WADHWA ... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC
2- O.A. No. 262/2020
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
i) To set aside and quash impugned Orders dated 24.4.2019 (A-
1) & 11.2.2020 (A-2) being wholly wrong, illegal and arbitrary.
ii) To direct the respondents to treat the intervening period from the date of submission of Medical Certificate of Fitness i.e., 22.07.2018 to 05.10.2018 as spent on duty for all purposes.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant entered service as Sorting Assistant on 07.10.1997 in Railway Mail Service, Bathinda. While working as Sorting Assistant in R.M.S. Bathinda, the applicant fell sick on 17.07.2018 and submitted medical certificate of illness. She submitted medical certificate of fitness dated 21.07.2018. But S.R.O. Bathinda did not allow her to join Duty with respect to letter dated 20.07.2018 issued by the Controlling Officer i.e. Respondent No. 3 (Annexure A-3) whereby he referred the medical certificate of illness dated 17.7.2018 to C.M.O. Bathinda to express medical opinion with regard to illness of the applicant and the necessity of leave recommended. The CMO Bhatinda replied thrice vide letters dated 16.08.2018, 04.09.2018 and 24.09.2018 in response to repeated references/communications of the Controlling Officer and confirmed that the applicant was sick on 17.07.2018 and that the period of rest from Digitally signed by MAMTA 17.07.2018 to 20.07.2018 was correct (Annexures A-8, A-9 and A-11). WADHWA The Controlling Officer directed the applicant to submit medical certificate of Fitness again vide letter dated 27.09.2018 (Annexure A- 3- O.A. No. 262/2020
12). She submitted fitness certificate for the second time on absolute insistence of the controlling officer on 05.10.2018.
3. The Controlling Officer issued the impugned order on 24.04.2019 treating the absence from duty of the applicant from 22.07.2018 05.10.2018 as Leave Due (Annexure A-1). The applicant made a representation dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure A-14) to respondent no. 2 which has been rejected vide order dated 11.02.2020 (Annexure A-2).
4. The contention of the applicant is that as per the Rules, an employee, who has been on leave on medical grounds cannot be restrained from joining duty after submission of medical certificate of fitness granted by the A.M.A., therefore, the action of the respondents in not allowing the applicant to join duty after submitting fitness certificate dated 21.07.2018 is arbitrary and illegal. Even after the CMO Bhatinda intimated that the medical certificate and fitness certificate submitted by the applicant are genuine, the respondents directed the applicant vide order dated 27.09.2018 to again submit the fitness certificate and to treat the period from 22.07.2018 to 05.10.2018 as leave of kind due is arbitrary and illegal and deserve to be quashed. The applicant prays that the aforementioned period is to be treated as spent on duty for all purposes.
5. The respondents contested the claim of the applicant. It has been stated therein that the applicant is habitual of submitting medical certificate of illness only to avail the half pay leave on medical grounds and most of the time, only one disease i.e. PUO is mentioned in the Digitally signed by MAMTA medical certificate of illness. The applicant submitted the medical WADHWA certificate of illness issued by Dr. Sanjeev Pathak, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Bathinda for five days w.e.f. 17-07-2018 to 21-07- 4- O.A. No. 262/2020 2018 mentioning the illness as PUO (Annexure R-2). Keeping in view the previous record of the applicant, the leave sanctioning authority i.e. Respondent No.3 referred the case of the applicant to the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bathinda with a request to constitute a medical board for examining the applicant as per provision under the Rule 19 (3) & (4) of CCS (Leave) Rule, 1972 and to express an opinion regarding facts of illness and necessity of recommendation of leave to the applicant with intimation to the applicant to appear before the CMO Bathinda for her screened medical examination.
6. The applicant, instead of appearing before the CMO Bathinda for her medical examination, submitted medical certificate of fitness to SRO Bathinda on 21-07-2018 A/N issued by Dr. Sanjeev Pathak, who had also issued medical certificate of illness to her w.e.f. 17-07-2018 to 21- 07-2018. However, the SRO Bathinda did not receive medical certificate of fitness and also not allowed her to join duty as per the directions of the leave sanctioning authority.
7. That since the applicant did not report to the CMO Bathinda solely to avoid her medical examination, therefore, the CMO Bathinda was again requested vide letter dated 31-07-2018, 07-08-2018, 20-08-2018, 21- 08-2018 and 27-08-2018 to constitute a medical board for examining the applicant. (Annexure R-5 Collectively). The CMO Bathinda submitted report on 04-09-2018 that medical examination of applicant was got conducted through medical board on 31-08-2018. As per this report, the applicant was suffering from severe headache with vertigo on 17-07- Digitally signed by MAMTA 2018 and the requirement of rest for five days is justified (Annexure R-6 WADHWA Collectively). However, the said report is silent about fact whether the applicant is fit to perform duty on 31-08-2018 or not. Hence, the CMO 5- O.A. No. 262/2020 Bathinda was again requested on 06-09-2018 followed by reminders dated 11-09-2018, 14-09-2018 & 20-09-2018 (Annexure R-7 Collectively) to examine the applicant and submit the report about fitness/unfitness of the applicant to perform duty. In response to the above letters, the CMO Bathinda vide letter dated 24-09-2018 intimated that medical certificate of fitness dated 21-07-2018 A/N issued by Dr. Sanjeev Pathak is correct (A-11).
8. However, the medical certificate of fitness was issued by Dr. Sanjeev Pathak on 21-07-2018 A/N i.e. two months earlier. Therefore, the leave sanctioning authority cannot entertain the medical certificate of fitness after two months of its date of issue. Hence, the applicant was asked to resume her duty by submitting the medical certificate of fitness of current date under the provision of the Rule 24(3)(a) and (d) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. (Annexure R-8). The applicant submitted medical certificate of fitness dated 06-10-2018 F/N issued by Dr. Mandeep Chitkara (Annexure R-9) and joined her duty on 06-10-2018 F/N (Annexure R-10). The period of absence w.e.f. 22-07-2018 to 05-10- 2018 was ordered to be treated as leave due vide SSRM "LD" Division Ludhiana letter dated 24-04-2019 by the leave sanctioning authority (A-
1) which was delivered to the applicant on 04-05-2019 through SRO Bathinda as the applicant did not perform any Government duty during this period.
9. The applicant filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions raised in the O.A. Digitally signed by MAMTA
10. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the material WADHWA available on record and considered the rival contentions of both sides. 6- O.A. No. 262/2020
11. The admitted facts are that the applicant submitted medical certificate of illness and applied for medical leave from 17.07.2018 to 21.07.2018. The respondent no. 3 referred the medical certificate of illness to CMO, Bathinda for second opinion. The medical certificate of fitness dated 21.07.2018 submitted by the applicant was not accepted by the respondents and the applicant was not allowed to join duty. The CMO Bhatinda submitted the report declaring the applicant was suffering from vertigo and requirement of rest for five days was justified. The applicant was asked to submit fitness certificate again, which she submitted on 06.10.2018. The respondents accepted the medical certificate of fitness dated 06.10.2018 and the applicant was allowed to join duty on 06.10.2018. However, the period from 22.07.2018 to 05.10.2018 was ordered to be treated as leave due vide order dated 24.04.2019.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the action of the respondents in not allowing the applicant to resume her duty after submission of fitness certificate and also the decision of the respondents to treat the period from 22.07.2018 to 05.10.2018 is arbitrary and illegal.
13. From the perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the applicant applied for medical certificate along with the medical certificate of illness as per the rules. The rest was advised by Dr. Sanjeev Pathak In-charge Government Aurvedica Hospital Bathinda, after specifically mentioning the disease 'PUO' while issuing medical Digitally signed by MAMTA illness certificate dated 17.07.2018. The rest advised was for five days WADHWA i.e. 17.07.2018 to 21.07.2018. On 20.07.2018, the respondents, being doubtful about the illness of the applicant, referred the illness certificate 7- O.A. No. 262/2020 for second opinion on 20.07.2018. The applicant was declared fit and she was issued fitness certificate on 21.07.2018 (a/n) which she produced before the respondents in order to resume her duty. However, the SRO, Bhatinda did not accept the medical certificate of fitness and did not allow the applicant to join duty for the reason that her illness certificate has been referred to for second opinion. We are of the opinion that though the decision of the respondents to secure second medical opinion about the facts of illness and recommended leave to the applicant by the concerned doctor, was in consistence with the relevant Leave Rules, but their action of not allowing the applicant to resume duty after expiry of the medical leave period and having medical fitness certificate, was totally arbitrary. The applicant was fit on 21.07.2018 (a/n) after having bed rest for five days from 17.07.2018 to 21.07.2018 and the doctor concerned issued the fitness certificate to that effect, which she produced before the authorities. Thus, the applicant, undoubtedly, was fit and also willing to join her duty on 21.07.2018 after being declared fit as such, but the respondents, arbitrarily, disallowed her to resume her duty. Though the verification of illness certificate dated 17.07.2018 by the CMO, Bhatinda, as decided by the respondent no. 3, could have been done even after joining of duty by the applicant, but they indiscriminately restrained the applicant to resume duty till 06.10.2018. Therefore, the applicant cannot be blamed for being absent from duty from 21.07.2018 to 06.10.2018 and the action of the respondents in treating that period as leave of kind due Digitally signed by MAMTA also cannot be held to be justified.
WADHWA
14. Moreover, the genuineness of the medical illness certificate with respect to fact of the illness and recommended rest to applicant by Dr. 8- O.A. No. 262/2020 Sanjeev Pathak for the period 17.07.2018 to 21.07.2018 has been upheld by the Medical Board constituted by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bathinda, on the request of respondent no. 3. The Medical Board, after going through the record, reported that the patient was having severe headache with vertigo on 17.07.2018 and she was given necessary treatment and bed rest for five days by both the doctors i.e. Dr. Ronyl Kaushal (Neuro Surgeon), Bathinda Neurospine and Trauma Centre and Dr. Sanjeev Pathak, Medical Officer, Government Ayurvedic Dispensary. Thus, the doubt of the respondents about the illness of the applicant was also found to be baseless. In these circumstances, when the genuineness of illness of the applicant, recommended rest to her and also the fitness certificate dated 21.07.2018 has been proved, then the respondents cannot refuse to accept the fitness certificate dated 21.07.2018 produced by the applicant and direct the applicant to submit a latest fitness certificate, without there being any illness. For absolutely no fault on the part of the applicant and for the impulsive decision of the respondents not to allow the applicant to resume duty on 21.07.2018 till 06.10.2018, the applicant has been put to disadvantage by treating the aforesaid period as leave of kind due.
15. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the decision of the respondents to disallow the applicant to resume duty after availing medical leave despite production of fitness certificate was totally irrational, illogical and arbitrary. The respondents' action to refuse the medical fitness Digitally signed by MAMTA certificate dated 21.07.2018 submitted by the applicant and direct her to WADHWA submit the latest medical certificate also exhibit the arbitrariness on their part. It is not the case where the applicant willingly absented 9- O.A. No. 262/2020 herself from duty but despite having declared medically fit and being willing to join duty, she was forced not to resume duty by the act of arbitrariness on the part of the respondent no. 3, as discussed hereinabove, due to which the department could not take the services of the applicant for the period in question. The respondent no. 2, in the impugned order dated 11.02.2020, has also observed that the act of the then Leave Sanctioning Authority was circumstantially in order but with the delay in medical examination of the applicant before CMO Bathinda/Medical Board, such delay has happened in joining. In these circumstances, this period of forced leave cannot be debited from the leave account of the applicant.
16. The decision taken by the respondents, in these circumstances, to treat the period from 21.07.2018 to 06.10.2018 as leave of kind due cannot be considered as a right decision. The discretion and powers have not been exercised by respondent no. 3 judiciously. The orders dated 24.04.2019 (Annexure A-1) and 11.02.2020 (Annexure A-2) are quashed and set aside being arbitrary and illegal. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that interest of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the respondent no. 3 to treat the period from 21.07.2018 to 06.10.2018 as 'spent on duty' for all intents and purposes. Ordered accordingly. The needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Original Application stands allowed. No costs.
Digitally
signed by
MAMTA
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
WADHWA MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 08.09.2025
'mw'