Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1173 (PAT)

Pawan Kumar Mishra v. State Bank Of India

2007-07-20

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State Bank of India. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved because the respondent State Bank of India has duducted a sum of Rs. 2,27,132.00/- from petitioner. As per the respondents this deduction has been made because petitioner was not entitled to the room rent in question which was charged by Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. This is the amount which is over and above the entitlement of petitioner. Petitioner submits that thereafter he has taken voluntary retirement from the bank and despite his request and claim this amount was not paid or adjusted at the time of leaving the service of the bank. 3. Petitioner has challenged this action of the bank as an arbitrary decision not based on any rational. Petitioner further submits that in an identical matter relating to another employee of the bank a Bench of this Court had intervened and struck down similar deductions which was made in the case of one Mr. D.N. Sharma. He brings to my notice the judgment dated 20.6.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 256 of 2000. This judgment is annexed as annexure-4 in support of the contention of the petitioner. 4. Petitioners submission is that he was referred to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi on the advice of medical practitioner approved by the State Bank of India and based on the medical advice of the treating doctor he was under treatment and he had availed the medical facility from the concerned hospital. Subsequently on submission of the bill given by the Apollo Hospital the State Bank of India in its wisdom deducted the above sum as not payable because it was beyond the so called entitlement of petitioner insofar as the room rent was concerned. According to petitioner this is a wrong interpretation which has been given by the bank because as per Rule 24(2) his medical benefits are reimbursable in full and Rule 24(6) is unnecessarily invoked in the present matter. Petitioner draws my attention to the judgment dated 20.6.2001 to show that identical submission was made by respondent bank in the above case and the same was noted and answered against the bank in the judgment of Hon ble learned Single Judge. Hon ble Single Judge after taking note of the submission made on behalf of the respondent held that petitioner was entitled to complete reimbursement. Hon ble Single Judge after taking note of the submission made on behalf of the respondent held that petitioner was entitled to complete reimbursement. The Court had thus say and observe in para-9: "the claim of the petitioner in the instant case is squarely covered by the above noted decisions of the Apex Court. The horizon of the fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 have been even expanding and it is too late for the Government or instrumentalities which are State as employer to. refuse to reimburse the medical claim of the employees, subject, of course, to any enquiry as to its genuineness and essentiality of treatment. To this extent Rule 24(6) and the Guidelines fixing the so-called reasonable limits on the reimbursement of the expenses on account of stay in the hospital in course of treatment does not appear to be in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution and making it dependable on the status of the officer, does not appear to be in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution. The bank would do well to amend the relevant part of the Rules and guidelines so as to be in conformity with the constitutional provisions." 5. That being the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court in an identical matter, according to petitioner, there is no occasiun for this Court to take a different view in the matter. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent bank has tried to draw the Courts attention to certain distinguishing features of subsequent judgment in this regard which has been passed by Hon ble Supreme. This Court is not impressed by such submission and legal ingenuity specifically in view of the fact that the above judgment rendered by learned Single Judge has neither been interferred with nor the operation of the same has been stayed. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that LPA. No. 668 of 2001 against the same said judgment has been admitted and is pending consideration of this Court but there is no stay of order insofar as the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 256 of 2000. 7. This being the legal and factual position there is no occasion for this Court to take a different view in an identical matter to the earlier decision dated 20.6.2001. The respondents are directed to take steps to reimburse a sum of Rs. 7. This being the legal and factual position there is no occasion for this Court to take a different view in an identical matter to the earlier decision dated 20.6.2001. The respondents are directed to take steps to reimburse a sum of Rs. 2,27,132/- which has been deducted from the peiitioner within a period of one month from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. This payment however will be subject to the final decision and opinion which a Division Bench may take in this regard in LPA No. 668 of 2001. 8. This writ application stands allowed with the above direction.