LPA No.1613 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: LPA No.1613 of 2001 DATE OF DECISION: December 10, 2008 MEHARBAN SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ...RESPONDENTS & OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA. PRESENT: MR. MANOHAR DADWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. YATINDER SHARMA, SR. DAG, PUNJAB. MR. R.N. RAINA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.4 & 5. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated August 16, 2000 whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of medical reimbursement on account of having undergone an open heart surgery has been rejected. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk w.e.f. 3.12.1957, in the Printing and Stationery Department of State of Punjab. He was sent on deputation with the Punjab School Education Board w.e.f. 31.1.1975, alongwith other staff members for Textbook Scheme. This scheme was transferred to Punjab School Education Board on 31.1.1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The Government of Punjab vide order dated 9.8.1978, decided to absorb the employees on permanent basis in the service of Punjab School Education Board w.e.f 1.7.1976. The petitioner opted for his absorption in the Board LPA No.1613 of 2001 -2- w.e.f 1.7.1976 and in this regard also gave written consent. Accordingly, he became employee of the Board for all intents and purposes. The petitioner continued to serve in the Board till the 30.11.1989, i.e. the date when he retired from service. The petitioner underwent an open heart surgery at Batra Heart Centre, New Delhi on 6.2.1998 and sent his medical bills to the Board as well as to the State Government for reimbursement. His claim was rejected vide order dated 27.7.1998, by the Board wherein it was held as under:- “With reference to your letter as per the resolution No.3(3) of the Board dated 25.3.96 it has been decided that the reimbursement of the bill is not to be made by the Board. You stood retired w.e.f. 30.11.89 from the services of the Board, the decision of the Board in this regard is as under:- “According to the resolution No.3(3) in the meeting it has been decided that under the pension scheme effective from 1.4.91, the officials/officers of the Board shall not be given the free Medical Treatment as the employees on their retirement are not entitled for reimbursement.” In view of the above, your medical claim alongwith documents is returned with the remarks that you should approach the concerned Department for reimbursement of medical bills from which you are getting first medical allowance.” The petitioner filed CWP No.13039 of 1998 which has been dismissed vide judgement dated August 16, 2000 by learned Single Judge. It this judgement that has been impugned in the present Letters Patent Appeal. LPA No.1613 of 2001 -3- Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to claim reimbursement of the medical bills submitted by him because as per terms and conditions of his absorption, the petitioner was entitled to all the benefits of pension, gratuity, etc. and thus, would also be entitled to medical reimbursement. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had opted for permanent absorption in the Board w.e.f. 1.7.1976 and served till the date of his retirement, i.e. 30.11.1989. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had become an employee of the Board for all intents and purposes and as per Condition No.(ii) of Service Rules and Regulations of the Board, the persons who are absorbed by the Board would be governed by the rules and regulations of the Board and they will not claim any protection or privilege accruing from the previous service regulations. Condition No.(ii) is reproduced as under:- “After absorption, they will be governed by rules and regulations of the Board and that they will not claim any protection or privilege accruing from the previous service regulations. For all intents and purposes the employees will be the employees of the Board.” Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner retired from the Board on 30.11.1989. At that time the benefit of medical reimbursement was not available to him. This benefit was made available to the employees of the Board w.e.f. 1.4.1991, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any medical reimbursement. Counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner had been drawing an amount of Rs.250/- per month as fixed medical allowance. LPA No.1613 of 2001 -4- We have heard the counsel for the parties a length. A perusal of the aforementioned facts shows that the petitioner who was earlier working as Clerk with the State Government stood absorbed in the Punjab School Education Board w.e.f. 1.7.1976, as the petitioner gave written consent for his absorption. From then onwards, the petitioner became an employee of the Board for all intents and purposes. He was governed by the rules and regulations pertaining to the Punjab School Education Board and as per Condition No.(ii) reproduced above, the petitioner was not entitled to claim any protection or privilege accruing from the previous service regulations. Thus, the case of the petitioner has to be viewed by considering him to be an employee of the Board. The petitioner underwent open heart surgery from the Batra Health Centre, New Delhi on 6.2.1998. At that time the policy with regard to reimbursement had not been introduced in the Board. This benefit was made available to the employees of the Board w.e.f 1.4.1996. As the petitioner had retired from service on 30.11.1989, therefore, he is clearly not entitled to claim medical reimbursement either from the State Government or from the Punjab School Education Board. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal which is hereby dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE December 10, 2008 (RAJAN GUPTA) Gulati JUDGE