JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing letter dated 3/3177 dated 18.04.2019 whereby the authorities have rejected the application with regard to earned leave as well as extension of earned leave of the petitioner dated 19.02.2019, 05.03.2019 and 19.03.2019 respectively. Further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to treat the period 19.02.2019 to 08.05.2019 as against earned leave or any other admissible leave. Further prayer has been made for direction to regularize the period during which the petitioner was on leave on medical grounds. 4. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in service since 13.11.2000 and joined the 42nd Bihar Public Service Commission. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioner was allocated the cadre of the State of Jharkhand and the petitioner was working on the post of District Supply Officer, Ranchi in the year, 2016. The petitioner was transferred to the post of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ranchi vide Notification No. 7235 dated 23.08.2016. The petitioner joined the said transfer post on 24.08.2016. He further submits that after about six months of his joining as the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ranchi , the petitioner was again transferred vide notification no. 3055 dated 10.03.2017 to the post of Additional Collector, Pakur. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after around twenty two months of his joining as the Additional Collector, Pakur, the petitioner was again transferred vide notification dated 31.01.2019 to the post of Director, Administration, Home (Prison) Directorate, Home Prison & Disaster Management Department, Ranchi on 05.02.2019. He further submitted that after joining of that post, the petitioner filed application on 19.02.2019 for leave on account of bed rest advised by the doctor as he suffered from acute back pain. He further submitted that the said application was supported with the medical report. He further submitted that after joining of that post, the petitioner filed application on 19.02.2019 for leave on account of bed rest advised by the doctor as he suffered from acute back pain. He further submitted that the said application was supported with the medical report. He further submitted that vide Notification No. 1504 dated 18.02.2019, the petitioner was again transferred from the present place of posting to the post of Director Accounts Administration & Self Employment, District Rural Development Authority, Simdega. He further submitted that the said transfer was done within a period of thirteen days from the previous transfer. The petitioner again made an application on 05.03.2019 for extension of his earned leave for another 15 days (06.03.2019 to 20.03.2019) as 15 days more bed rest was advised by the doctor. The said application was made along with medical advice. He further submitted that the petitioner again made application dated 19.03.2019 before the Additional Chief Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand for further extension of his earned leave from 21.03.2019 to 19.04.2019 i.e for the period of 30 days. He further submitted that the petitioner was under anticipation that the respondent-authority without any objection or without any remarks has accepted the application and he was under anticipation that it has been deemed to be approved. He further submitted that by application dated 20.04.2019, the petitioner again made request to extend the earned leave for the period of 15 days i.e from 20.04.2019 to 08.05.2019. The said application was made on the basis of medical advice. The petitioner has not been communicated any adverse decision on his application. He further submitted that vide letter dated 18.04.2019, application dated 19.02.2019, 05.03.2019 and 19.03.2019 regarding grant of earned leave as well as for extension of earned leave have been rejected by the authorities. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 6. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, leaned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order dated 18.04.2019 on the ground that no adverse communication was made to the petitioner with regard to earlier application for leave and in that view of the matter, the petitioner was under anticipation that leave of the petitioner has been granted. He further submitted that by one go, all the three applications have been rejected, which is arbitrary. He further submitted that by one go, all the three applications have been rejected, which is arbitrary. He further submitted that transfer order dated 18.02.2019 has been interfered by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1134 of 2019 and the same was quashed. He further submitted that all the applications were filed along with medical reports and prescription. He further submitted that the prescriptions were of Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, (RIMS), Ranchi. He further submitted that in view of the matter, prescription cannot be doubted as it has been issued by a top institute of the State. He further submitted that the impugned order by which the application of the petitioner for earned leave was rejected, no reason has been assigned. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment in the case of “Dr. Prem Bihari Lal Saxena Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh”, reported in AIR 1965 Allahabad 406 in which the Hon’ble Court has held as under:- “ It is true that R. 67 provides that “leave cannot be claimed as of right. When the exigencies of the public service so require, discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description is reserved to the authority empowered to grant it.” In the instant case, however, conditions which are requisite for refusal or revocation of the leave under the aforesaid rule were not present and, therefore, there was no justification for the State Government to have refused to grant leave to the petitioner which he had earned on account of the duration of his service.” 8. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State by way of referring para 8, 9 and 10 of the counter-affidavit submitted that the transfer order dated 18.02.2019, petitioner has not obeyed the same. He further submitted that petitioner submitted an application for earned leave on medical emergency and went to leave without getting the same approved by the competent authority. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted various applications for extension of the earned leave on the same ground. He further submitted that pursuant to transfer order dated 18.02.2019, the petitioner did not submit his joining on the transferred post, therefore, a request was made to take appropriate action in light of the letter dated 16.01.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted various applications for extension of the earned leave on the same ground. He further submitted that pursuant to transfer order dated 18.02.2019, the petitioner did not submit his joining on the transferred post, therefore, a request was made to take appropriate action in light of the letter dated 16.01.2019. He further submitted that after examining the facts and circumstances and the applications submitted by the petitioner as well as looking to the work exigency in view of the upcoming Parliamentary election, the petitioner was directed to join on the notified post but instead of obeying the same, the petitioner arbitrarily remained on leave and against sent application of extension for leave. 9. Relying on Rule 152 of the Jharkhand Service Code, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The petitioner was advised bed rest and he was pursuing W.P.(S) No. 1134 of 2019 challenging transfer order. 10. The Court has considered the rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties. While two occasions, the petitioner filed petition for leave and nothing adverse was communicated to the petitioner. After receiving last application, the authorities have rejected all three applications with one common order dated 18.04.2019. It transpires that in the rejection order no justification of rejection of earlier two applications have been indicated. There is no doubt that to grant leave is right of the employer. But in medical cases in view of Rule 152 of the Jharkhand Service Code read with Appendix 12, Clause 3, it needs to be accepted. The said Rule is reproduced here-in-below:- “If a Government servant applies for leave at short intervals on the score of health, leave should be refused except on Medical certificate. In such a case the frequency of the leave taken in the past should be brought in the notice of the Medical examiners, and they should be asked to advise with special care on the terms required to establish a complete recovery.” 11. Thus, leave needs to be considered in view of medical certificate of the petitioner. 12. Appendix 9, Clause 19 of the Rule 150 of the Jharkhand Service Code is reproduced here-in-below: “19. Leave may be granted with retrospective effect from the date on which it is admissible.” 13. Thus, leave needs to be considered in view of medical certificate of the petitioner. 12. Appendix 9, Clause 19 of the Rule 150 of the Jharkhand Service Code is reproduced here-in-below: “19. Leave may be granted with retrospective effect from the date on which it is admissible.” 13. From perusal of Clause-3 of the Appendix-12 of the Jharkhand Service Code, it transpires that it was required by the authority concerned to take into consideration medical certificates which were filed along with application. The medical certificate also cannot be doubted as it has been issued by the RIMS, Ranchi which is a top institute of the State. In view of Appendix-12, Clause-3, the conditions which are requisite for refusal or revocation of the leave in the said Appendix, are not present in the impugned order. 14. In view of these discussions, the impugned order dated 18.04.2019 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent-State to consider the application of the petitioner afresh in the light of above discussions and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 15. The writ petition stands disposed of.