1977 PLP 118 (PLC)

"Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, Junior Clerk appeared before me for medical examination today on 13-11-1975. After examination I found that he is alright and there is no sign of illness."

3. In view of the above opinion the District Manager rejected the leave and the petitioner was marked absent for seven days. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. The District Manager does not appear to have followed the opinion of the Medical Officer expressed on 13-11-75. The Medical Officer found that the petitioner was not sick on 13-11-1975 and that on the said date there was no sign of illness. In any way this opinion cannot be interpreted to mean that the petitioner was not sick from 3-1 i-75 to 9-11-75. In order to remove doubt the Medical Officer was examined today. He stated in his evidence that he was not in a position to say that the petitioner remained sick with Malaria from 3-11-75 to 9-11-75. He took the responsibility of 13-11-75. He stated that the petitioner was not sick on that day. The petitioner had been examined after ten days of the first illness. The Medical Officer of the Government Transport Service did not say that the petitioner was not sick from 3-11-75 to 9-11-75. On the basis of his opinion the leave of the petitioner could not be refused.

5. The policy of the respondent with respect to acceptance of medical leave and sick leave is given in Establishment Standing Instruction No.

16. The excerpt is Exh, P. B. on record, It is given below:- "In supercession of all previous instructions and memoranda issued on the subject from time to time, it has been decided that in future the Medical Certificates for grant of sick leave under the rules should be accepted only if issued by- (1) Board's Medical Officer ; or (2) a Doctor or Incharge of a Government Hospital or Dispensary ; or (3) a Doctor or Incharge of any Local Body Dispensary 1 or (4) a private M. B. B. S. Medical Practitioner, duly registered: Provided that "if an employee submits a certificate granted by a private medical practitioner it %ill be acceptable only if the competent authority is satisfied that the services of the Board's Medical Officer or Doctor of Government or Local Body Hospital were not available in the vicinity."

6. The above policy clearly says that a medical certificate for grant oft sick leave issued by a Doctor or Incharge of any Local Body Dispensary should be accepted. In the present case the medical certificate was issued by a Doctor of Local Body Dispensary, therefore, under the policy it had to be accepted by the respondent. It is only in the case of a private Medical Practitioner that the competent authority has to satisfy itself that the services of the Boards, Medical Officer or a Doctor of a Government or Local Body Hospital were not available in the vicinity. No instructions have been issued that any application should be referred to any Medical Officer after the medical leave had been expired. The procedure adopted by the respondent in this case was erroneous and against the policy given in the above Standing Instructions.

7. For the above reasons the order of the respondent rejecting the leave is set aside and he is directed to sanction the leave with pay.