JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar, J. - This writ petition is directed against refusal to grant medical leave applied for by the petitioner with effect from 31-3-1982 to 19-12-1982. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 7-1-1983 (Annexure - 20) of the sanctioning authority which is to the effect that the period of his absence from duty was to constitute a break in his service and he was not to be paid salary for that period. The relief for quashing order of posting of the petitioner on the post of Cashier has subsequently been given up by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a Class III employee in the office of the District Judge, Lucknow. He was posted as Reader in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. That Court was abolished with effect from 1-4-1982. Subsequently the order of posting of the petitioner as Cashier was passed. The petitioner did not take charge of the post of cashier and applied for medical leave on medical certificate with effect from 31-3-1982. The first application for medical leave was moved for 31-3-1982 to 11-5-1982. He went on moving applications for medical leave from time to time by seeking extension of the medical leave upto 2-1-1983. In support of each application for medical leave he used to furnish a certificate from a private registered medical attendant who had mentioned in the certificate that he was suffering from amoebic colitis. Under order, dated 7-1-1983 of the District Judge, Lucknow, who was the sanctioning authority, the petitioner on his request was allowed earned leave instead of medical leave for the period from 20-12-1982 to 2-1-1983. 3. On receipt of the petitioners first application dated 1-4-1982 for medical leave upto 11-5-1982 the sanctioning authority required a second medical opinion from the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow about the illness alleged. The petitioner represented his inability to go to the Chief Medical Officer and insisted that he should be examined by the Government doctor at his residence. Accordingly the Chief Medical Officer medically examined him at his residence on 29-7-1982 and reported that apparently the petitioner was not found suffering from any disease and was quite healthy but even that he could be examined by the Senior Physician of the Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow. Accordingly the Chief Medical Officer medically examined him at his residence on 29-7-1982 and reported that apparently the petitioner was not found suffering from any disease and was quite healthy but even that he could be examined by the Senior Physician of the Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow. Thereupon the sanctioning authority by its letter dated 3-8-1982 (Annexure - 16) advised the petitioner that he could get himself admitted at the Balrampur Hospital if he insisted that he was ill. The petitioner did not do it. The applications of the petitioner for medical leave were rejected in the absence of medical certificate from the authorised medical attendant. In its order dated 7-1-1983 the sanctioning authority has clearly mentioned that he was "not satisfied of the medical grounds stated by him for medical leave." 4. Fundamental Rule 81-B of the Financial Hand Book Volume II Parts 2 to 4 provides for grant of medical leave not exceeding 12 months during the entire service of the State Government employee on production of a certificate from such medical authority as the Governor may by general or special order specify in this behalf. For the petitioner, who is a Class III employee, there is prescribed an authorised Government medical attendant. Subsidiary Rule 96(b) provides that in case of leave on medical ground for more than a month, a second medical opinion from authorised medical attendant is to be obtained by the sanctioning authority unless the second opinion is dispensed with for special reasons. The sanctioning authority was, therefore, justified in calling upon the second medical opinion on the point of illness of petitioner. As already mentioned the first application for medical leave moved by the petitioner was for a period longer than a month. Since then he has been applying to extend medical leave from time to time right upto 2-1-1983. The Chief Medical Officer on medical examination of the petitioner on 29-7-1982 has found him not suffering from ailment. The petitioner on being further required to appear before a Senior Physician of Balrampur Hospital to arrive at a definite opinion about his ailment deli - bravely avoided his medical examination. On 7-1-1988 the sanctioning authority after looking into the office report and taking into account the facts and circumstances rejected the petitioners application for medical leave as it was not satisfied with the medical ground on which the petitioner was claiming medical leave. On 7-1-1988 the sanctioning authority after looking into the office report and taking into account the facts and circumstances rejected the petitioners application for medical leave as it was not satisfied with the medical ground on which the petitioner was claiming medical leave. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sanctioning authority was bound to accept the medical certificates of the registered private practitioner furnished with the applications for medical leave and was bound to grant him leave and should have granted leave just on those certificates is not correct. Apart from the fact that the sanctioning authority was perfectly justified in insisting to obtain report from authorised medical Government attendant about the alleged illness of the petitioner, it further had the discretion to sanction or not to sanction medical leave. Subsidiary Rule 97 clearly confers this right on the sanctioning authority. The petitioners case that the sanctioning authority could not have refused the medical leave to the petitioner and the refusal was due to ulterior motive or extraneous circumstances seems to be incorrect. 5. After filing this writ petition on 18-10-1982 interim order was passed by this Court on 3-1-1983 at the instance of the petitioner. Under this order the Court has directed that the District Judge was to obtain medical report regarding the petitioners illness from Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospital, Lucknow instead of Balrampur Hospital and the same medical report was to be submitted to this Court within two weeks. There is no mention of this interim order dated 3-1-1983 in the order of the District Judge dated 7-1-1983 (vide Annexure-20) under which he finally rejected the petitioners application for medical leave. Had the interim order of this Court been within the knowledge of the District Judge he would not have disposed of the pending medical leave application on 7-1-1983 but would have obtained medical report from Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospitals, Lucknow. It appears that the petitioner who knew the interim order did not bring it to the notice of the District Judge nor the latter came to know about it otherwise. It seems that he was avoiding his medical examination under the interim order dated 3-1-1983 of this Court. The fact that the medical report required under this courts order dated 3-1-1983 was not obtained does not matter much. 6. It seems that he was avoiding his medical examination under the interim order dated 3-1-1983 of this Court. The fact that the medical report required under this courts order dated 3-1-1983 was not obtained does not matter much. 6. Therefore, the petitioners claim for grant of medical leave to him from 31-3-1982 to 19-12-1982 has no force and substance and the order of the sanctioning authority rejecting medical leave for the said period cannot be interfered with. But the order of the District Judge dated 7-1-1983 to this effect that this entire period is to be taken as period of his unauthorised absence causing break in the service deserves reconsideration. Petitioner seems to be a hard working and a competent employee. He is in Government service for the last many years. Break in service may cause him considerable loss and hardship. We, therefore, order that if the petitioner applies to the District Judge, Lucknow within a month from today for earned leave and/or extraordinary leave for the period of his absence from 31-3-1982 to 19-12-1982 earned leave/extraordinary leave as admissible under rules be sanctioned to him by the District Judge to regularise his unauthorised absence for that period. In case the petitioner doe. not move accordingly for regularisation of his unauthorised absence the order of the District Judge for treating the period of his absence as break in his service shall stand and will continue to hold good. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order is made as to costs.