P.K. SARKAR, J- I have heard Mr C.S. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr A.K. Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr S. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I have also heard Mr U.B. Saha, the learned Senior Government Advocate assisted by Mr D.C. Nath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner is an employee of the Agartala Bench of Gauhati High Court and was working in the principal seat at Guwahati drawing Assam Pay Scale. Thereafter the Government in accordance with the judgment of Civil Rule No. 173 of 1990 introduced Tripura Scale of Pay for the employees of the Agartala Bench of Gauhati High Court and accordingly the petitioner opted for Tripura Scale of Pay by his letter dated 1.6.1995. The Tripura Scale of Pay was introduced by an order of the Registrar, Agartala Bench dated 19.5.1995 with the approval of the Finance Department of the Government of Tripura. The Tripura Scale of Pay came into force on 1.9.1992. the employees were permitted to opt the Tripura Scale of Pay with effect from 1.9.1992 i.e. the date on which the Tripura Scale of Pay was introduced for the High Court employees of the Agartala Bench with retrospective effect. While the petitioner was drawing his salary in the Assam Pay Scale, he was in receipt of fixed Medical Allowance and there was no provision for the petitioner to get reimbursement of medical expenses in Assam Pay Scale. In Tripura Scale of Pay the provision for medical reimbursement has been made for the petitioner and other Gazetted Officers of Agartala Bench of Gauhati High Court. The Tripura Scale of Pay does not have fixed Medical Allowance and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to reimbursed medical expenses with effect from the date he has opted for Tripura Scale of Pay. The Deputy Registrar by his office order dated 4th January, 1996 passed an order for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,800/- (Rupees six thousand eight hundred) which the petitioner has drawn as Medical Allowance in Assam Pay Scale on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement and not Medical Allowance from 1.9.1992. 3. The Deputy Registrar by his office order dated 4th January, 1996 passed an order for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,800/- (Rupees six thousand eight hundred) which the petitioner has drawn as Medical Allowance in Assam Pay Scale on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement and not Medical Allowance from 1.9.1992. 3. The petitioner having felt aggrieved by the recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs.6,800/- (rupees six thousand eight hundred) towards Medical Allowance filed representations to the Registrar of the Agartala Bench of Gauhati High Court. The Registrar took up the matter with the Accountant General, Tripura, Agartala and the office of the Accountant General, Tripura by its letter dated 23rd April, 1996 intimated the Deputy Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench that in the Tripura Revised Pay Rules, 1988 there is no provision for treatment of Medical Allowance (already drawn) as medical reimbursement. 4. It is an admitted fact that if the benefit of Medical Allowance is recovered from the petitioner then he is entitled to medical reimbursement with effect from 1.9.1992 i.e. the date on which he has opted for Tripura Scale of Pay. The question is: Is it practically feasible for an employee to claim mecjical reimbursement in the year 1996 in respect of medical expenses incurred by him from 1992 to 1995? It is not denied that legally the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement from 1992 to 1995. Now the practical difficulty in doing so is that it is not likely for the petitioner to retain the medical prescriptions or cash memos for such a long period for claiming medical reimbursement after his adoption of Tripura Scale of Pay. If the petitioner is asked to do so then, in my opinion, the High Court will be forcing on the petitioner to take the same by unfair means to prepare medical bill for reimbursement. This is not expected from the High Court as an employer. Therefore, I am of the view that if the benefit which the petitioner is entitled after his coming over to Tripura Scale of Pay is not possible to be given then the similar benefit derived by such employee should also not be deducted from him. 5. This is not expected from the High Court as an employer. Therefore, I am of the view that if the benefit which the petitioner is entitled after his coming over to Tripura Scale of Pay is not possible to be given then the similar benefit derived by such employee should also not be deducted from him. 5. Mr A.K. Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court argued that while introducing the Tripura Scale of Pay the petitioner was aware that he may have to refund the Medical Allowances drawn by him in Assam Pay Scale as in Tripura Scale of Pay there is no provision for Medical Allowance but for medical reimbursement. Mr Bhowmik accordingly submitted that when the petitioner knowing all these facts has opted for Tripura Scale of Pay then he cannot escape refund of Medical Allowances drawn by him under Assam Pay Scale. I cannot agree with Mr Bhowmik because Medical Allowance cannot be a part of pay or salary. Medical Allowance or Medical Reimbursement is in the shape of fringe benefit which cannot form part of salary or pay. These allowances are given to meet the medical expenses for the employee or for the members of his family. This allowance or reimbursement can never be addition to pay or salary. 6. Mr Bhowmik also submitted that the order of deduction was passed in the year 1996 and the petitioner has approached this Court in 2001 i.e. after more than 4 years and, therefore, the claim of refund of the deducted Medical Allowances is hopelessly barred by delay and laches. It appears that the petitioner after getting the order of deduction in the year 1996 submitted representations to the Registrar of Agartala Bench of Gauhati High Court and the Registrar has taken up the matter with the Accountant General, Tripura. Thus, a considerable time has been taken by the Registry. Ultimately the prayer of the petitioner was rejected by an order of the Deputy Registrar dated 11.6.2001. So, from Annexure-6, the letter of Deputy Registrar dated 11.6.2001 it appears that it is the last correspondence by which the High Court has denied the petitioner to refund the Medical Allowance deducted from him. Therefore, I am of the view that the petition is well within time and there is no delay and laches. So, from Annexure-6, the letter of Deputy Registrar dated 11.6.2001 it appears that it is the last correspondence by which the High Court has denied the petitioner to refund the Medical Allowance deducted from him. Therefore, I am of the view that the petition is well within time and there is no delay and laches. Further even if had there been 4/5 years' delay by any High Court employee against the High Court, in that event also I am of the view that as an ideal employer High Court should not have taken the plea of limitation against its employee. 7. Mr U.B. Saha, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondent submitted that Medical Allowance when prescribed in the rules is a part of pay. I have already answered this question in my earlier paragraph. If reimbursement is not a part of pay then fixed Medical Allowance cannot form part of pay as both the benefits are given to meet special need of the employee and the members of his family. 8. After hearing the learned counsel of all the parties, I am of the view that the deduction of Medical Allowances from the petitioner is not proper and legal and, therefore, I quash all the orders passed either by the High Court or by the Accountant General, Tripura in this regard. 9. The Registrar, Agartala Bench of Gauhati High Court should make immediate arrangement for refund of the Medical Allowances of the petitioner already deducted from his pay within a period of one month from today. 10. Accordingly the petition is allowed. However, I make no order as to costs.