Skip to content


Maganlal Sukhdevbhai Katara Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpl. C.A. No. 2046 of 1982
Judge
Reported in(1982)2GLR680; (1983)IILLJ223Guj
ActsBombay Civil Services Rules - Rules 641 and 674
AppellantMaganlal Sukhdevbhai Katara
RespondentCommissioner of Police, Ahmedabad
Excerpt:
- - after he recovered and recouped, in order to resume his duties, he was required to produce the fitness certificate under rule 641 of the bombay civil services rules which he obtained from the civil surgeon on april 14, 1982 who recommended that the petitioner should be assigned lighter duty for a period of one months from the date of the certificate......sick leave with effect from 3rd october, 1975 as he was suffering from tuberculosis. he submitted medical certificate of the civil surgeon, ahmedabad in support of his application for leave from 8th october, 1975 to 24th june, 1977 and the salary for the period was paid to him in 1978. the petitioner was required to be treated for his ailment and since he was not paid salary, he was required to go to his home town and take proper treatment and rest. after he recovered and recouped, in order to resume his duties, he was required to produce the fitness certificate under rule 641 of the bombay civil services rules which he obtained from the civil surgeon on april 14, 1982 who recommended that the petitioner should be assigned lighter duty for a period of one months from the date of the.....
Judgment:

1. The petitioner is a Police Constable working in the Control Room of the Office of the Commissioner of Police at Ahmedabad. By this application he moves this Court for appropriate writs, orders and directions to enjoin the Commissioner of Police to permit him to resume his duties. The circumstances under which the petitioner has been constrained to move this Court are as under.

2. The petitioner was required to proceed on sick leave with effect from 3rd October, 1975 as he was suffering from tuberculosis. He submitted medical certificate of the Civil Surgeon, Ahmedabad in support of his application for leave from 8th October, 1975 to 24th June, 1977 and the salary for the period was paid to him in 1978. The petitioner was required to be treated for his ailment and since he was not paid salary, he was required to go to his home town and take proper treatment and rest. After he recovered and recouped, in order to resume his duties, he was required to produce the fitness certificate under Rule 641 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules which he obtained from the Civil Surgeon on April 14, 1982 who recommended that the petitioner should be assigned lighter duty for a period of one months from the date of the certificate. The petitioner reported himself for duty with the above certificate in the city Police Control Room of the respondent's office but he was not allowed to resume his duties and was asked to appear before the Medical Board, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, vide letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters dated April 17, 1982. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has moved this Court.

3. This Court has issued the rule and made it returnable today. I am of the opinion that this petition should be allowed obviously for the following reasons. Rule 641 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules enjoins that the Government servant who has proceeded on medical leave would not be entitled to return and resume his fitness in the prescribed form issued by a Medical Committee, Civil Surgeon or a Registered Medical Practitioner. If the Government servant concerned is a Gazetted Officer, it is obligatory for him to obtain a medical certificate from the Medical Committee as prescribed in Rule 641(ii) unless it is dispensed with in cases specified therein. In those excepted cases the certificate may be obtained from a commissioned Medical Officer or a Medical Officer incharge of a civil station. If a Government servant is not a Gazetted Officer, or a Government servant is not a Gazetted Officer, the head of the department of such servant in his discretion may allow him to resume the duties by accepting the certificate of a registered medical practitioner. The rule is clear enough and the respondent was not entitled to insist that the petitioner must produce certificate from the Medical Committee. Mr. Trivedi learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent urged that rule 674 the authority competent to sanction leave may in his discretion secure a second medical opinion and it under this rule that the respondent has insisted for a certificate from the Medical Committee. I am afraid the whole contention is misconceived. Rule 674 deals with a situation when an application for leave on medical certificate is made by a non-gazetted servant. In other words, it pertains to a situation before a Government servant proceeds on leave. Even in such a case, the authority competent to sanction leave can, in order to assure himself about the genuineness of the cause of the leave, insist for a second medical opinion by requesting the concerned servant to get himself medically examined by a Civil Surgeon or District Medical Officer. The competent authority cannot insist even in such cases where the leave is sought on medical ground that the concerned employee should get himself examined by a Medical Committee. In any case, Rule 674 has no application in the present case.

4. The result is that this petition should be allowed and suit of mandamus should go to the respondent enjoining him to allow the petitioner to resume his duties forthwith and to pay him all his salary and allowances as may be permissible under the rule within six weeks from his resuming the duties. Rule is made absolute accordingly with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //