JUDGMENT : Shoba Annamma Eapen, J. The above original petition is filed by the petitioners- Union of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, dated 28.09.2015 in O.A.No.180/27 of 2015, directing the respondent to treat the period from 14.08.2002 to 12.09.2002 and also from 15.12.2008 to 25.12.2008 as duty. 2. The respondent/applicant, who is Crew Controller in Thiruvananthapuram Division, was directed to attend periodical medical examination while working as Senior Loco Pilot (Passenger) on 14.8.2002. During the medical examination, his ailment was detected and was placed under sick list by medical authorities for further management of his illness. He was referred to railway hospital, Perambur, admitted and had undergone pacemaker implantation. He was placed on sick leave for the treatment of his own illness from 14.8.2002 to 12.9.2002 and during further periodical medical examination on 15.12.2008, he was found unfit and he was placed on sick list and the period of absence was from 15.12.2008 to 25.12.2008. The period of absence (both spells) were treated as sick leave and not as duty. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein approached the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal, on detailed examination, found that all the medical conditions of the respondent/applicant were detected during his periodical medical examination. With reference to the Indian Railway Medical Manual (for short 'IRMM'), the Tribunal found that as per the provisions of para 524 of IRMM, the respondent is entitled to get the period of absence during the two spells (from 14.08.2002 to 12.09.2002 and from 15.12.2008 to 25.12.2008) treated as duty. The petitioners herein-Union of India and others have approached this Court challenging the above order of the Tribunal. 4. We have heard Sri.Dinesh Cherukat, the learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. For reference, para 524 of the Indian Railway Medical Manual reads as follows:- “524. Treatment of the period of absence of Railway employees sent for periodical medical re-examination:- The period for which an employee is absent from duty for periodical medical re-examination may be treated as below:- (i) Time spent in journey to and from the actual medical examination may be treated as duty. (ii) Time taken by the examining medical authority to come to a decision in the matter may be treated as duty. (ii) Time taken by the examining medical authority to come to a decision in the matter may be treated as duty. In case where the examining authority is not quite sure of the decision to be taken, he makes a reference to the Chief Medical Director and the first decision in this case is given after reference to the C.M.D. In such cases, the period up to the announcement of the decision may be treated as duty. Note: Periodical Examination of an employee should invariably be completed in 3 days. If a Railway doctor is not able to come to a conclusion within a period of 3 days, the entire period required for the doctor to come to a conclusion of the P.M.E should be treated as duty. However it will not include the time taken by the employee to procure spectacles or any wilful delay by the employee. (Bd.'s No.86/H/5/11 dated 07/12/90) (iii) Time taken by the employee to equip himself with spectacles, trusses, etc., or with any other equipment without which he/she is not considered fit for duty should be debited to the leave account of the employee concerned. This period will be from the time the examining authority recommends that artificial aids are necessary till the time the employee obtains such aids and is certified fit for duty by the competent authority. In respect of spectacles, the time up to five days spent by employee to equip himself with spectacles for the first time or to change his existing spectacles should be treated as duty. Any case requiring relaxation beyond the period of 5 days may be reviewed at General Manager’s level. (Bd.'sNo.85/H/5/10 dated 12/14-08-86 and No.99/H/5/10 dated 12/08/1999) (iv) In the event of his/her being declared unfit an employee may appeal to the Chief Medical Director against the examining authority's decision within a period of seven days from the date of adverse report by the examining authority. If the Chief Medical Director, on appeal, confirms the decision of the first examining authority, the period of waiting from the moment of being declared unfit till the verdict of the C.M.D. would be debited to the employees leave account. If the Chief Medical Director, on appeal, confirms the decision of the first examining authority, the period of waiting from the moment of being declared unfit till the verdict of the C.M.D. would be debited to the employees leave account. If, on the other hand, the Chief Medical Director over-rules the decision of the first examining authority, such period of waiting should be treated as duty, provided the employee concerned has preferred an appeal within a week from the time the result of the original medical examination is communicated to him. It is also necessary that the appellate authority should decide the appeal within three weeks from the time the appeal is preferred. (v) In cases where the immediate supervisor or an officer is not available to allow an employee with a fit certificate to join his/her duty on return from periodical medical examination the time taken by such administrative delay may be treated as duty.” 6. It is an admitted fact that the respondent herein was directed to attend the periodical medical examination on 14.8.2002 and 15.12.2008. There is no case for the petitioners that the respondent, while working as Sr.Loco Pilot (Passenger), was admitted in the hospital due to any sickness. It is during the periodical medical examination that the respondent was found having health problems. Thereafter, the respondent was referred to railway hospital, Perambur, where he had undergone pacemaker implantation. Similarly, during the second spell, when he went for periodical medical examination, again he was referred to the Railway Cardiologist where the Cardiologist found that he is not fit to work as Loco Pilot as he comes below the category Aye-3. There is nothing on record to show that it is at the request of the applicant, reference was made to the railway hospital. During the periodical medical examination, it was diagnosed that the respondent was having heart ailment. But no decision was admittedly taken during medical examination to implant pacemaker. The decision to implant pacemaker was taken only after examination and diagnosis by the Doctors of the Railway Hospital, Perambur. There is nothing on record to show the time taken for such diagnosis and for coming to the conclusion to implant pacemaker, by the doctor of the Railway Hospital, Perambur. The decision to implant pacemaker was taken only after examination and diagnosis by the Doctors of the Railway Hospital, Perambur. There is nothing on record to show the time taken for such diagnosis and for coming to the conclusion to implant pacemaker, by the doctor of the Railway Hospital, Perambur. Hence, as per the provisions of para 524(ii) of IRMM, the respondent is entitled to get the first spell of the leave, that is from, 14.8.2002 to 12.9.2002 as duty. 7.As regards the second spell, from 15.12.2008 to 25.12.2008, the respondent was sent for periodical medical examination. Till then, the respondent was having no serious ailment and there is no report regarding any ailment for the period from 12.9.2002 to 15.12.2008. But, again on 15.12.2008, when he went for periodical medical examination, he was evaluated by the Railway Cardiologist, who confirmed that he is not fit to work as Loco Pilot and hence he was decategorized to 'Aye-3' and below. No details are forthcoming regarding the duration during which the decision was taken by the Railway Cardiologist finding the respondent unfit to work as Loco Pilot (Passenger). Further, the petitioners contended that there was no administrative delay on the part of the medical authorities to come to the decision regarding the medical fitness of the applicant, as contended by the respondent. But no materials are placed on record for proving the above contention beyond doubt. Hence, we are of the opinion that the second spell (15.12.2008 to 25.12.2008) is also to be treated as duty as per the provisions of para 524 of IRMM. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and hence, O.P.(CAT) is dismissed.