Petitioner's Claims Dismissed: Importance of Compliance with Procedures and Evidence

The High Court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's claims for quashing Central Administrative Tribunal orders, payment of provisional pension, legitimacy of medical leave, and entitlement to pensionary benefits. The Court found the petitioner's non-compliance with directives and lack of exceptional circumstances for prolonged leave undermined his claims. The petitioner's failure to provide sufficient medical evidence and adhere to verification procedures led to the denial of pensionary benefits upon voluntary retirement. The Court emphasized the necessity of following procedures and providing adequate evidence to support claims for extended leave and pension benefits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of Central Administrative Tribunal orders dated 3.9.2010 and 22.2.2012.
2. Direction for payment of provisional pension to the petitioner.
3. Legitimacy of the petitioner's medical leave from 23.7.1990 to 13.3.1997.
4. Petitioner's non-compliance with directives to resume duties and appear for medical examination.
5. Exceptional circumstances for sanctioning leave exceeding five years under Rule 12 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972.
6. Petitioner's entitlement to pensionary benefits.

Detailed Analysis:

Quashing of Central Administrative Tribunal Orders:
The petitioner sought to quash the orders dated 3.9.2010 and 22.2.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad. The Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner's Original Application No.604 of 2008 and Review Application No.64 of 2010, respectively, which challenged the rejection of his medical leave and subsequent pension claims.

Direction for Payment of Provisional Pension:
The petitioner also sought a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of provisional pension. However, the Tribunal and the High Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim for pensionary benefits due to the unresolved status of his prolonged medical leave.

Legitimacy of Medical Leave:
The petitioner claimed medical leave from 23.7.1990 to 13.3.1997 due to arthritis. Despite submitting medical certificates, the leave was not sanctioned. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to provide adequate medical evidence and did not comply with directives to appear before the Civil Surgeon for verification.

Non-compliance with Directives:
The petitioner was directed to resume duties within fifteen days in 1994 and to appear before the Civil Surgeon, Farrukhabad, but he did not comply. The High Court noted that the petitioner did not provide valid reasons for his non-compliance, which undermined his claim for medical leave.

Exceptional Circumstances for Leave:
Under Rule 12 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, leave exceeding five years requires the President's sanction in exceptional circumstances. The High Court found no exceptional circumstances in the petitioner's case that warranted such leave. The petitioner's failure to present himself for medical examination further weakened his claim.

Entitlement to Pensionary Benefits:
The petitioner opted for voluntary retirement on 6.2.2002, which was accepted on 5.5.2002. However, his pension claims were denied due to the unresolved status of his medical leave. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the petitioner's prolonged absence without proper medical verification did not justify pensionary benefits.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no error in the Tribunal's orders or the respondents' actions. The petitioner's claims for medical leave and pensionary benefits were unsupported by adequate evidence and compliance with procedural requirements. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to directives and providing valid medical evidence to substantiate claims for extended leave and pension entitlements.

---