CWP No.7631of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7631of 2007 Date of decision 19.12.2008 Rajbala .....Appellant versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mehtab S. Gill. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr.Jagdeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate, the appellants. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Amardeep Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.3. K. Kannan, J. 1. The writ petitioner makes a second round of litigation, when, on a previous occasion, the petition filed for claiming medical reimbursement had been disposed of by direction in CWP No.17690 of 2006 that the claim shall be considered in the light of demand made through the legal notice. It ultimately was taken up by third-respondent and rejected on 18.9.2006.. 2. The petitioner's-husband was working as a Clerk in Central Cooperative Bank, Rohtak, and during the course of service he had several serious ailments that required hospitalization and treatment, but he ultimately succumbed to his ailments on 22.8.2002. The petitioner submitted the claim for reimbursement of the expenses by producing all the proof of treatment such as medical bills, receipts and documents totalling a sum of Rs.2,15,158/-. Since her husband was treated in a private hospital, CWP No.7631of 2007 -2- the demand had been for reimbursement of the expenses at the rates prescribed by AIIMS/PGIMS, and if the bills at the rates of AIIMS/PGIMS existed, the petitioner was entitled to be reimbursed to at least 75 per cent, by the Bank in view of the Government letter/policy of the year 1993. The rejection of the claim for reimbursement has been made by the third respondent, on the basis that the petitioner had not obtained prior permission of the bank before taking treatment from the Appolo Hospital. The defence itself was not that the terms of employment did not provide for medical reimbursement but was on the ground that prior permission had not been obtained and the reference note of Pt. B. D. Sharma, PGIMS, Rohtak to Apollo Hospital, which was directed to be produced was not produced. The manner of rejection of the claim leaves much to be desired. It is no consolation to widow claiming reimbursement of the expenses to be told that her son had been given an employment in the place of his father and that the opportunities for approving bills have not been properly utilised. Unfortunately for us that the petitioner herself has not put any terms of employment to show the specific entitlement to reimbursement of medical expenses. An employment in the Central Cooperative Bank would be governed by their own terms and conditions relating to medical reimbursement and cannot be assumed to be the same as in Government service. The Government instructions for reimbursement for Government servants are not to be imported as applicable for all the employees of a Cooperative Bank, without specific provision therefor in the terms of employment. If there are no specific instructions, therefor, the Government instructions for medical reimbursement may be adhered to. 4. In the Circumstances while setting aside the order, we direct CWP No.7631of 2007 -3- the third respondent to examine the claim of the petitioner afresh in the light of terms of medical reimbursement that are applicable to all employees of the Bank. Irrespective of the fact that the prior permission of the Bank had not been obtained for treatment at a private hospital, the extent of reimbursement will be strictly governed by the rules set-forth for the terms of employment. The petitioner shall be given yet another opportunity to show proof of reference of the attending doctor at PGIMS, Rohtak for better management elsewhere. The impugned order of the third respondent is accordingly set aside, the matter is remitted to the third respondent for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above. ( MEHTAB S. GILL ) ( K. KANNAN) JUDGE JUDGE 19.12.2008. A. Kaundal Internet Yes/No