Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 856 (PAT)

Om Prakash Sinha v. State Bank Of India

2008-07-04

V.N.SINHA

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 2. Petitioner is an officer of the Bank. He has filed this writ application assailing the circular letter issued by the Patna Circle of the Bank, bearing No. 30 of 2006-07 dated 26/31.07.2006, as contained in Annexure-1 to this application, whereunder the Bank has standardized the medical charges, which is to be reimbursed to the three category of officer(s) serving the Bank within Patna Circle. The challenge is on the ground that categorization of the officers serving the Circle for reimbursement of the medical charges is violative of Sub-clause (2) of R. 24 of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and amounts to amending the service conditions which is beyond the competence of the authorities of the Circle. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the circular, Annexure-1 tantamount to amending the service conditions of the petitioner as contained in Sub-clause (2) of R. 24 of the Rules, which enjoins the Bank to reimburse the amount of medical, surgical and hospital expenses as actually and necessarily incurred by an officer in respect of any injury, disease or illness suffered by him in full. In this connection, it is pointed out with reference to Sub-clause (6) of R. 24 of the Rules that except in emergent cases an officer who suffers illness or injury, is referred to the private hospital/ nursing home by the Bank Doctor and the cost incurred on the surgery and treatment bereft of Hospital/ Nursing home charges is to be reimbursed by the Bank in full. Under the impugned circular letter, Annexure-1, the cost of medical and surgical treatment as also officers of the Bank serving the Circle have been categorized in different grade and the amount of reimbursement can not exceed the amount indicated in the circular irrespective of the cost of actual treatment, which is contrary to the rules as would appear from the conjoint reading of Sub-clauses (2) and (6) of R. 24 of the Rules. 4. Counsel for the Bank has opposed the submission. 4. Counsel for the Bank has opposed the submission. He states that the impugned circular has been issued after rationalizing the charges for medical and surgical treatment available in the different hospitals within the Patna Circle and officers of the Bank serving the circle if required medical or surgical treatment have to be reimbursed in the light of the charges rationalized under Annexures-1 to IV of the circular letter and this Court should not interfere with the medical reimbursement policy decision of the Bank. In support of such submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others V/s. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc., AIR 1998 SC 1703 , paragraphs 25 and 26. 5. I have examined the submissions of the parties in the light of the provisions contained in Sub-clause (2) and Sub-clause (6) of R. 24 of the Rules, which is extracted below: "Rule 24(2) : Medical Benefits- Subject to the provisions contained herein, the amount of medical, surgical and hospital expenses as are actually and necessarily incurred by an officer in respect of any injury, disease or illness suffered by him shall be reimbursed in full by the Bank The reimbursement of such expenses incurred in respect of his family shall be restricted to 75% of the expenses so incurred. Rule 24(6): Hospitalisation- Except in emergent cases, and where prior consultation with authorized doctor for any reason is not possible, an officer or his family may, with the prior approval of the authorized doctor, be admitted for treatment in a private hospital or nursing home. In the former case, the authorized doctor should be informed of the full particulars of the case as soon as possible after the patient has been admitted. Hospital and nursing home fees may be reimbursed to a reasonable extent depending on the status of the officer." 6. Perusal of Annexure-IV of the impugned Circular, however, indicates that the surgical operation to be undertaken by the officers of the Bank has been categorized as Minor, Intermediate, Major, Major Plus and Supra Major. Hospital and nursing home fees may be reimbursed to a reasonable extent depending on the status of the officer." 6. Perusal of Annexure-IV of the impugned Circular, however, indicates that the surgical operation to be undertaken by the officers of the Bank has been categorized as Minor, Intermediate, Major, Major Plus and Supra Major. The said Annexure-IV of the circular further categorized the officers of the Bank serving the Patna Circle into three separate category with further stipulation that the reimbursement of the cost of medical/ surgical charges shall be different for the three category of officers irrespective of the actual charge incurred by them. 7. In the opinion of this Court, conjoint reading of Sub-clauses (2) and (6) of R. 24 of the Rules enjoin the Bank to reimburse the medical and surgical charges in case of treatment of a Bank officer in full irrespective of his category and, accordingly, the charges indicated for different category of officers under Annexure-IV of the impugned circular for medical and surgical reimbursement amounts to amending the service condition of the officers as contained in Subclause (2) of R. 24 of the Rules, which is beyond the competence of the authorities of the Patna Circle and is quashed with direction to the Bank to reimburse the officer the entire medical or surgical expenses incurred by him, of course, the officer has to go to the hospital on reference from the specified Doctor of the Bank. While referring the officer to a hospital, the specified doctor of the Bank may also specify the ward of the hospital in which the officer should be admitted and treated. 8. This application is, accordingly, disposed of.