Absent for Uncertain Period.

No point of controversy. Setting aside all other eligibility criteria related question, LND can’t be granted in the present case because of a very simple reason that has been explained in Note 1 below rule 174 which states –
“Leave not due is intended to be regarded as an advance of leave and its grant should therefore be -limited to the amount that both can be and will be earned by subsequent duty; further, it is meant to be granted only in exceptional cases of illness and finally when the exceptional step of granting such leave is taken, it shall be irrevocable, except at the request of the officer, who should not be penalized if reasonable anticipations fail to materialize.”
And I repeat he concerned employee is not ill. Now, Here “illness” in Note 1 could not be read as “illness of family members or neighbors”. The essence of the rule is clearly reflected in itself.
Members, that’s all I could suggest. Please suggest if there is any alternative way as I feel that the employee concerned desperately needs it.

Dear Mr. Ray,
Thank you for the clarifications!
Pls don’t mind. May I request you to let me know why you reiterate on the conditions of exceptional cases of illness (Cancer, Leprosy, TB etc.) which is there in sub-rule 2 of main rule 174. Whereas, sub-rule 1 provides rather simple application – clause (c) allows admissibility of 90 days LND in one spell and total 180 days in subsequent spells WITHOUT MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. This itself leaves scope of grant of LND without severe medical ground!
It is clear that sub-rule 2 is another provision of LND. It starts as “2. Leave not due can also be granted to such of the temporary Govt. employees…..”. I can’t understand why the the term “further” in Note 1 may not correspond to the phrase “can also” in sub-rule 2 ! Otherwise, relevance of sub-rule 1 is not justified.
With regards.
Dear Dr. Majumdar,
Perhaps you have been slightly mistaken.
First, you have read the ‘Note-1’ as ‘Note-1 below sub-rule (2) of rule 174’. Actually it is ‘Note 1 below rule 174’. Two sub-rules have been stated and thereafter Note, covering both the sub-rules, has been given.
Secondly, as you said “This itself leaves scope of grant of LND without severe medical ground!”, this is not that. the LND must have to be granted on the basis of severe illness, it is not “without medical ground”, it is “without medical certificate”. Let it be elaborated a little more. Sometime situation happens where medical certificates are issued after fitness on recovery from a prolonged illness (for example which covers 90 days). This is when the term “without medical certificate” comes under reference.
Regards.

All the controversial posts are removed from this segment to keep up the spirit of the forum.
donyi_polo (Global Moderator)