JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent-Bank i.e. Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank which is now designated as Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is husband of petitioner no. 2 who at the relevant time in 1995 was posted as clerk-cum-cashier at Sonho Branch of the Bank in Saran District. Petitioner No. 2 his wife is also admittedly a Class-3 employee in the said Bank. 3. On 14.10.2005 while carrying an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Main Branch, Chapra to Sonho Branch on his motor-cycle petitioner was fired upon by robbers who looted the cash and petitioner sustained gun shot injury on his back side. He was treated at main hospital at Chapra and then at Patna. On 18.10.2005 hospital at Patna referred him to Spinal Injuries Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi for specialized treatment. 4. From Annexure-E to the counter affidavit it appears that on 19th July, 2008 the Medical Director of the Indian Spinal Injuries Centre has certified that petitioner no. 1 was admitted in hospital on 19.10.2005 with a gun shot injury causing fracture in vertebra with paraplegia with bowel and bladder involvement and was discharged on 24.12.2005. The certificate further mentions that with this injury he should be fit to resume duties from wheel- chair with effect from 21.7.2008. 5. The writ petition has been filed on 26.6.2008 after about three years of the occurrence with a prayer that the Bank may be directed to pay compensation to the petitioners to the tune of Rs. 76,22,216/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum because petitioner no, 1 has suffered disability and the robbery was on account of failure of the Bank to provide guard/security to the petitioner while he was carrying cash to the concerned branch. 6. Learned counsel for the Bank has submitted that the Bank has not only met the cost incurred in the treatment of petitioner no. 1 but has also sanctioned and provided a wheel-chair on his request at a cost of Rs. 1,56,000/- and has also paid regular salary to him although he has remained at Delhi throughout on the ground of medical treatment. 7. 1 but has also sanctioned and provided a wheel-chair on his request at a cost of Rs. 1,56,000/- and has also paid regular salary to him although he has remained at Delhi throughout on the ground of medical treatment. 7. It appears that the writ petition has been filed after a considerable delay when there was some insistence by the bank that petitioner should join his duties and continue with possible treatment at Chapra. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the three judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners such as (1) 1995(1) SCC 551 (R.D Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd, and Others), (2) 2003 ACJ 512 (Susheela and Anothers vs. State of Karnataka and Others, and (3) 2001 ACJ 1998 (Shyama Devi and Others vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi and Others), have no application to the facts of this case. In the first case the Supreme Court was considering a claim for compensation for motor accident resulting in total disability under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Bihar Act 1939. In the latter two judgments the High Court of Karnataka and High Court of Delhi were dealing with compensation to Forest Watchman murdered by smugglers and death of a head constable on account of explosion of a rocket kept in the Malkhana without preventive measures. In the present case petitioner has no doubt suffered from disability but he is still continuing in service and being paid his salary. His treatment expenses and expense of providing a suitable wheel-chair has also been met by the Bank. Hence it is not a fit case for entertaining a claim for compensation in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If petitioner as an employee has any other forum under the general law or under the Labour Law, he is permitted to avail of such opportunity. 9. This court finds no unfairness on the part of the Bank in treating the petitioner to be on duty and paying him his salary throughout the period of his treatment and at the same time meeting the cost of the treatment. Hence the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. If petitioner no. 9. This court finds no unfairness on the part of the Bank in treating the petitioner to be on duty and paying him his salary throughout the period of his treatment and at the same time meeting the cost of the treatment. Hence the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. If petitioner no. 2 has not been paid her salary for any period when she has worked or was on authorized leave, such salary shall be paid to her without any delay. To protect petitioner no. 1 from any unfair direction by the Bank that he must join, Chapra, it is observed that the Bank and the petitioner will abide by a decision of Medical Board to be constituted by the competent authority of the Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, Delhi and petitioner will be given an opportunity to join duties only as per opinion of the Medical Board keeping in view the injuries of petitioner no. 1.