Judgment S.R. Sen, J. The instant writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 10.05.2010 at Annexure-3 issued by the Superintendent of Police, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong. The petitioner's case in a nutshell is that: 1. That this is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus and or Certiorari and or any other appropriate Writ order or direction. 2. That the Petitioner had been working as a Constable under Police Department and had retired from service w.e.f. 1st July 2010 and the Petitioner had drawn all the Pensionary/Retirement benefits except leave Salary/Encashment. 3. That while the Petitioner was in service had been suffered from Tuberculosis (T.B.) for 460 days i.e., 15 months 10 days. The State Respondent without authority of Law and prescribed rule as per the Meghalaya F.R. and S.R. Rule 1984 converted/adjusted T.B. leave with earn leave, whereby the Petitioner was deprived of his right to draw leave Encashment on earn leave at the credit of the Petitioner. Hence, the Humble Writ Petition filed before the Hon'ble Court with a humble prayer for setting aside and quash the Impugned Order issued Vide D.O. No. 1568, dated 10.05.2010 and a direction to release the leave Salary/Leave Encashment and grant of T.B. Leave which is a Special category of Leave. 4. That this application is filed bonafide for the ends of justice. 2. The learned counsel, Mr. A.H. Hazarika appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was suffering from Tuberculosis (T.B.) as a result he could not joined his duty, and after recovery when he joined his duty, his leave was considered as an unauthorized leave and adjusted with Earn Leave. Mr. A.H. Hazarika also contended that since he was a T.B. patient and remain absent from duty for 15 (fifteen) months 10 (ten) days, so his leave should be considered within the parameter of the T.B. leave, and prays that necessary direction may be issued. The learned counsel also brought to my notice the opinion of the Finance Department Annexure-5 at page 24 i.e. Under Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Finance (Budget) Department. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State, Mr. The learned counsel also brought to my notice the opinion of the Finance Department Annexure-5 at page 24 i.e. Under Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Finance (Budget) Department. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State, Mr. S. Sen Gupta submits that as per the S.R. 114 the petitioner is entitled for the T.B. leave only after exhausting the Earn Leave, so the petition may be dismissed. 4. I have perused the impugned order dated 10.05.2010 at Annexure-3 annexed with the writ petition which is reproduced herein below: OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE:: EAST KHASI HILLS, SHILLONG:: COPY OF D.O. No. 1568 DATED 10/5/2010 Heard UBC/49 Kholjon N. Arengh in O.R. He reported sick w.e.f. 28/11/2008 while he was posted at Shillong Court. He was suffering from Tuberculosis and undergone treatment for the same. His case appears to be genuine. He has got 287 days E.L. due at his credit up to 1/1/2010. Hence the period of his sickness is granted as follows:- (1) 287 (two hundred eighty seven) days w.e.f. 28/11/2008 to 8/9/2009 as E.L. on M.C. as T.B. Leave. (2) 173 (one hundred seventy three) days w.e.f. 9/9/2009 to 1/3/2010 as T.B. leave on M.C. His pay is hereby released which was held up vide D.O. No. 2928 dtd. 29/10/2009. He should report for duty at Shillong Court. Sd/-Shri A.R. Mawthoh, IPS Superintendent of Police, East Khasi Hills, Shillong. 5. From the said office order, it appears that the petitioner had 287 (two hundred eighty seven) days Earn Leave credited in his Account which has been adjusted for his absence from the duty. On the basis of the medical certificate, I have also perused the Annexure-5 as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and on perusal of the said opinion given by the Under Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Finance (Budget) Department, I find that it is a mere opinion and this court has nothing to do with it. 6. Now, the question remains that if a person suffers from T.B. or any other serious diseases, his leave to be granted under what rule. 6. Now, the question remains that if a person suffers from T.B. or any other serious diseases, his leave to be granted under what rule. In my view, definitely, it is by S.R. 114 of Meghalaya, 1984 which is reproduced herein below: S.R. 114 (1)-All Government servants suffering or suspected to be suffering from T.B. Cancer/Leprosy should at first be sent to the nearest recognised institution for proper diagnosis or treatment. (2) If after careful examination the case of a government servant is found to be "open" one he will be granted leave for 18 (eighteen) months by instalments of four months on the recommendation of the Medical Officer concerned. The leave for 18 (eighteen) months as admissible, shall follow immediately after the earned leave admissible, at the credit of the Government servant is fully exhausted. During the period of leave so granted or thereafter but during such period of leave ordinarily granted to him under the leave rules to which he is subject to, if medical authority thinks that there is no reasonable prospect of his recovery, the he will be invalidated and proportionate pension, as prescribed by rules be sanctioned. If before the expiry of the maximum leave his case is certified to have become a "closed" one he will be allowed to resume his appointment subject to the condition that the government servant shall undergo periodical re-examination by his proper Government Medical Officer, and if necessary by a competent authority approved by the Government. 7. On bare perusal of the Sub Rule 2 of 114 S.R., it is understood and clear that if a person suffers from T.B., he will have to first exhaust the Earn Leave in his credit and that to on the re-commendation of the medical officer concerned, and thereafter, if further leave is necessary, then he is entitled for a Special Leave of 18 (eighteen) months which should be granted at the interval of 4 (four) months each. If it is so, then I find that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order dated 10.05.2010 because the petitioner had Earned Leave in his credit. So the same was adjusted on medical ground for his absence. Therefore, the question does not arise to grant Special T.B. leave keeping intact the Earn Leave. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. So the same was adjusted on medical ground for his absence. Therefore, the question does not arise to grant Special T.B. leave keeping intact the Earn Leave. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, this instant writ petition is dismissed and stands disposed of. No order as to costs.