( 2026:HHC:37777 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 140 of 2026 Decided on: 1st September 2026 Hitender Mandyal …Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge. 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. G.S.Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) In the present appeal, consideration is sought to the order passed by learned Single Judge passed in CWP No. 9464 of 2023, titled as Hitender Mandyal vs. HRTC & Anr., dated 17.12.2025, filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner. 2. In sum and substance, the learned Single Judge had upheld the order dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure P-11), which was subject matter of challenge before the writ Court. Vide the said order, ex post sanction to the grant of 38 days commuted leave 2 ( 2026:HHC:37777 ) w.e.f. 19.09.2022 to 26.10.2022 had been accorded in favor of the petitioner, who was a driver in the HRTC. The period thereafter from 27.10.2022 to 17.05.2023 was treated as ‘Dies Non’ for all intents and purposes and it was mentioned that it would not be a break in service but this period would not be counted as on duty for any purpose. 3. The plea of the present appellant that for the subsequent period, he should be treated on medical leave as there was sufficient leave in his credit, was rejected by the learned Single Judge, while noting that apparently the petitioner had been transferred on 15.09.2022 from Kullu to Shimla unit, but had not joined his duty at the transferred station and remained continuously absent for a total period of 231 days. 4. On his re-transfer on 08.05.2023 to Mandi, he joined at the said station on the same day and had then given various medical certificates from different hospitals and doctors covering the entire period of his absence. He was duly examined by the Medical Board on 27.10.2023 and it was opined that he was fit for duty. 5. It was noticed that on 29.09.2022, the petitioner was stated to have sent a letter, wherein he stated that he was sick and was unable to join his duty, but at the moment he was transferred to Mandi, he joined his duties. 3 ( 2026:HHC:37777 ) 6. The stand of the employee was not accepted on the ground that the medical certificates were issued by different doctors from different institutes and the genuineness of the claim had also been doubted and on the examination by the Medical Board, it had been found that there was incomplete records and it had been mentioned by the Board that they could not say that how much rest was advised and the ATFL sprain required only 3-6 weeks’ rest, which was the initial period as such. 7. 7. The learned Single Judge also took into account the circular dated 07.02.2009 issued by the respondents that, how the period is to be treated as ‘Dies-Non’ on account of the fact that various employees were getting their transfers cancelled after lapse of considerable time and also took into account the provisions of Rule 19(i) (ii) of the Central Servant Service Rule which governs sanction of medical leave to Non-Gazetted Government Servants along with Rules 17(1) and 17-A of the Fundamental Rules, which go on to provide that the medical certificate has to be given in Form- IV through a Government Hospital. 8. The specific plea which has thus been taken on account of fact that the period should have been treated as leave as the petitioner had sufficient leave, has been responded by filing a reply by the respondent-corporation on account of the fact that the 4 ( 2026:HHC:37777 ) petitioner had only produced medical certificates from different Medical Officers for different disease for the absentee period and the medical certificate produced from a government hospital was duly considered for 38 days, for which commuted leave was granted. It was accordinlgy held that private doctors as such were not authorized to give medical certificate for more than 7 days as per the notification dated 19.07.2026 (Annexure R-1), which provides that the patient shall be referred to the Government hospital/recognised hospital. A perusal of the said notification would go on to show that the medical officers posted at IGMC, Dr. RPGMC, Tanda & HP Govt. Dental College, Shimla, were, the authorized officers to issue medical certificate for less than 7 days only and thereafter the patient was required to be referred to the consultants by them. The said stand of the respondent-Corporation as such was not rebutted in any manner in the rejoinder filed by the appellant. 9. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the subsequent furnishing of the medical certificates by private doctors would not suffice to put-forth the plea that the said period should be counted as period on leave, keeping in view the fact that Rules as such governed how government employee has to apply for leave and leave cannot as such be granted after the 5 ( 2026:HHC:37777 ) employee has joined, rather he has to take permission as such and inform his employer that for what reason he cannot attend office, supported by medical certificate from government hospital. 10. In such circumstances, the decision of the respondents to treat the said period as ‘Dies-Non’ does not suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, we are not in a position to differ from the view taken by learned Single Judge. 11. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, so also the pending applications. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Chirag Bhanu Singh) Judge 01.09.2026 (Ritu)