IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1399 of 2010 1. ALLAHABAD BANK through its General Manager (Personal Administrative), Allahabad Personal Administration Department, Head Office, 2, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata 2. The Assistant General Manager (Personal Administrative) Allahabad Bank Personal Administration Department, Head Office, 2, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata 3. The Chief Manager (Personal Administrative), Allahabad Bank Personal Administration Department, Head Office 2, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata (Respondent in the writ petition) ---Appellants Versus CHANDRA BHUSHAN PANDEY, son of Late Deo Nandan Pandey, presently residing in Mohalla – Vikas Colony, AG Colony, Main Road, PS Shastri Nagar, Town and District Patna---- Respondent ----------- 3- 12/10/2010 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha for the appellants, and Mr. S B K Mangalam for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellants presses IA No.7794 of 2010, seeking condonation of the dealy of one day in filing this appeal. In the circumstances of the case, the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. IA No. 7794 of 2010 is accordingly disposed of. 2. With consent of the parties, the appeal is taken on board for Admission. It appears that the respondent as an employee of the Allahabad Bank was subjected to departmental proceeding. He submitted his medical bill two years after the claim. The Bank rejected it on the ground of delay leading to the present CWJC No.11036 of 2009, which has been disposed by a learned single Judge of this Court. It has been held that the delay in submission of the bill shall not come in his way and the Bank has been directed to consider the genuineness and the 2 admissibility of the claim as per the rules or the policy decision of the Bank. 3. We have perused the material on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We entirely agree with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The delay in submission of the bill cannot per se be a ground for rejection of the claim. We find from record that there is reasonable explanation for the delay in submission of the bill inasmuch as the writ petitioner was ill during a major part of the period. Secondly, the learned single Judge has directed scrutiny of the bills as per the rules or the policy decision of the Bank and the same cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. We regret that the Bank has chosen to challenge the order passed by the learned single Judge. 4. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Birendra Prasad Verma ) mrl