Letters Patent Appeal No.668 OF 2001 ------- Against the judgment and order dated 20.6.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No.256 of 2000 by the learned Single Judge. ---------- 1. The State Bank of India, through its Chief General Manager (C.G.M.) Local Head Office, Judges Court Road, Patna. 2. Deputy General Manager (Personnel), State Bank of India, C.P. Thakur Building, Frazer Road, Patna. 3. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Boring Road, Patna. 4. Dr. S.N. Mishra, Senior Medical Consultant, State Bank of India, C.P. Thakur Building, Fraser Road, Patna ---- Respondent/Appellants. Versus Smt. Veena Sharma wife of Late D.N. Sharma, resident of Village/Mohalla State Bank Colony, Digha P.O. Digha, P.S. Digha, District-Patna ---- Petitioner/Respondent. ------- For the Appellant: Mr.Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate. Mr. S.D. Sanjay & Mr. Akash Chaturvedi. For the Respondent: Mr. Akash Deep. -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL S.K. Katriar, J. The State Bank of India has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.6.2001, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 256 of 2000 (Smt. Veena Sharma Vrs. The State Bank of India & others), whereby the writ petition has been allowed, and the Bank has been directed to fully reimburse the medical bills of her late husband. 2 We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the present proceedings. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. D.N. Sharma, the late employee of the appellant Bank was, at the relevant point of time, serving the Bank as Officer Grade of M.M.G. III. On or about 19.3.1997, he was taken seriously ill and was admitted in Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. He was diagnosed HIV+, popularly known as AIDS. He was admitted in the hospital on 23.3.1997, and was discharged on 23.5.1997. He was re-admitted in the same hospital twice. He ultimately died on 18.10.1997. The respondent herein, in the capacity of the widow of the late employee, submitted medical bills to the Bank for reimbursement. The two bills were for Rs. 2,85,849.15 and Rs.2,40,897/. In view of the rules in force which we shall deal in detail hereinafter, the Bank promptly reimbursed the entire claims over medical treatment. However, the claim for room rent was not reimbursed in full, and was confined to the extent the classification in the Bank permitted it. 3. Aggrieved by the action of the appellant Bank, the respondent preferred the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 256 of 2000, which has been allowed by the judgment dated 20.6.2001. The learned Single Judge has observed that the classification 3 as to payment of room rent dependent on the employee‟s standing in the Bank is impermissible in law, particularly in view of the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition has been allowed with the direction to the Bank to make full payment of the bills. The classification as to room rent has been set aside and the Bank has been directed to re-frame the rules in accordance with the observations made in the judgment. Learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 336. Hence this appeal at the instance of the Bank. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has supported its action. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the learned writ Court. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Rules 24(2) and 26(6) occurring in Chapter VI, of the State Bank of India Officers (Terms and Conditions of Services) Rules (hereinafter referred to as „the Rules‟), is as follows: “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 4 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. …… … ………… ………… … 26(6) Hospitalization- 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. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the provisions of rule 24(2) of the Rules extracted hereinabove, entire medical expenses irrespective of the employee‟s standing in the Bank is reimbursable and has, in fact, been paid to the respondent. The area of controversy is about the extent to which room rent is admissible. The Bank interprets rule 26(6) of the Rules extracted hereinabove to mean that the room rent at the place of treatment shall be admissible to the employee according to the graded chart prepared by it and revised from time to time. The following chart of admissibility was in force in the Bank at the relevant point of time. 5 “BED CHARGE: (REVISED) applicable at Mumbai & Metro cities only: MMG I & MMG II Rs. 400/- to Rs.650/- MMG III & MMG IV Rs. 650 -to Rs.950/- MMG V & above Rs. 950/- to Rs.1500/- (Room rent includes bed, nursing, service charges (like water, electricity, air conditioner if available),etc.” 7. The employee was then in the middle management group (iii) and, therefore, room rent of Rs.650/- to Rs.950/- was admissible to him. The aforesaid list of entitlements occurs in the policy decision dated 27.6.1996 (Annexure-B to the Bank‟s counter affidavit), and explains the reasons for the graded chart. It has, inter alia, taken into account the fact that the private hospitals these days have rooms with a lot of variables which Per Se do not have any connection with the treatment. The same has more to do with comfort and convenience at times akin to luxury. In such a situation, we entirely agree with the classification made by the Bank for reimbursement of room rent of its employees as per his standing in the hierarchy of the Bank. We cannot fail to take notice of the fact that after all the travelling allowances admissible to the employee either for official business or medical purposes is directly related to his standing in the organization where he serves. Another important aspect of the matter is that the Bank has made no discrimination in reimbursement on 6 the charges over medical treatment which is payable in full. Yet another aspect of the matter is that the Bank is entitled to harness its resources in accordance with the diverse demands on it. Only one of them is medical expenses. A scheme has to be prepared in a manner that it works out uniformly, efficiently, and effectively in the long run. 8. In that view of the matter, we disagree with the observations of the learned Single Judge that the graded list for reimbursement of room rent is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution can not be stretched to the extent and in the manner as has been done by the learned Single Judge, particularly in a situation where the medical expenses which includes entire cost of diagnosis, X-ray, treatment charges, surgery, medical treatment etc. is reimbursable. We also disagree with the approach of the learned Single Judge in applying the provisions and the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, completely ignoring that it is open to the authorities to make valid classification which has reasonable differentia with the object sought to be achieved. Otherwise different rates of pay scales, different rates of dearness allowance, different rates of house rent, different rates of travelling allowance, mode and manner of journey, would all be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. As indicated hereinabove, there is reasonable differentia of 7 admissibility of room rent based as it is on an objective basis, namely, standing of the employee in the Bank, and we fully upheld it. 9. We must examine the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh (supra), on which the learned Single Judge has placed reliance. The respondents in that case were aggrieved by the change in policy affected by the appellant- Government in regard to reimbursement of medical expenses to its serving and retired employees. According to previous policy promulgated in 1991, reimbursement of medical expenses charged by certain designated hospitals like, Escorts, Apollo, etc., were admissible. However, according to new police promulgated on 13.2.1995, treatment could be had from any hospital but reimbursement of medical expenses was to be restricted “…to the level of expenditure as per the rate fixed by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, for a similar treatment package or actual expenditure which ever is less”. The new policy further laid down as follows: ”The rate for a particular treatment would be included in the advice issued by the District/State Medical Board. A Committee of technical experts shall be constituted by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, to finalize the roles of various treatment packages.” There were further instructions that reimbursement of medical expenses will be according to the rates 8 as prevalent in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). 9.1. The contention of the respondent was that the Supreme Court had already upheld reimbursement for treatment at Escorts and, therefore, now it would not be permissible for the appellant-State to change its policy. 9.2. General observations made by the Supreme Court in that judgment does not help us in resolving the finer issue arising for a decision in the present case. In other words, that was not a case where the question of reasonable classification as to admissibility of room rent was in question. The judgment is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has rightly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vrs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and others, (1998) 4 SCC 117, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the State has the right to formulate its policy and revise it from time to time. It has been further observed that the obligation of the State in terms of Articles 21, 41 and 47 of the Constitution to provide medical facilities which adds to the healthy life of its citizens is limited by its resources. Paragraph nos. 29 and 30 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereinbelow: “29. No State of any country can have unlimited resources to spend on any of 9 its projects. That is why it only approves its projects to the extent it is feasible. The same holds good for providing medical facilities to its citizens including its employees. Provision of facilities cannot be unlimited. It has to be to the extent finances permit. If no scale or rate is fixed then in case private clinics or hospitals increase their rate to exorbitant scales, the State would be bound to reimburse the same. Hence we come to the conclusion that principle of fixation of rate and scale under this new policy is justified and cannot be held to be violative of Article 21 or Article 47 of the Constitution of India. 30. In Vincent v. Union of India (SCC pp.173 & 174, para 16) “ In a welfare State, therefore, it is the obligation of the state to ensure the creation and the sustaining of conditions congenial to good health. … In a series of pronouncements, during the recent years, this court has culled out from the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution these several obligations of the State and called upon it to effectuate them in order that the resultant picture by the Constitution Fathers may become a reality.” 10.1. This judgment was upheld by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Confederation of Ex-servicemen Association and others Vrs. Union of India and others, (2006) 8 SCC 399. 11. We, therefore, conclude that we disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We hold that rule 26(6) of the Rules is a valid provision of law. The classification made by the Bank for reimbursement of room rent for medical treatment is based on an objective classification uniformly applicable to all it seeks to cover, and has a reasonable differentia with the object sought 10 to be achieved, based as it is on the very objective basis of the employee‟s standing in the Bank. It was, therefore, fully justified in allowing the respondent‟s claim for reimbursement of room rent as per the graded chart set out hereinabove. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, namely, the employee died in excruciating circumstances before he could present the bills and is now represented by his widow, and in exercise of our extra-ordinary, discretionary, prerogative writ jurisdiction, we direct the Bank for reimbursement of the entire amount as a special case without the obligation of payment of interest, if not already paid, without the force of a precedent. The employee died way- back on 18.10.1997. 12. In the result, we allow this appeal, and respectfully express our disagreement with the judgment of the learned writ Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.K. Katriar, J.) Kishore K. Mandal, J.I agree. (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) High Court Patna, Dated 19th May, 2010. Vinay/ A.F.R.