IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 242 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision : February 14, 2011 The Managing Director, State Bank of Patiala and another ....Appellants Versus Sat Paul Jindal .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 27.7.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge quashing order dated 16.4.1998 passed by the appellant- bank and its officials whereby the claim of the writ petitioner- respondent for reimbursement of expenses made on his medical treatment was rejected. 2. It has come on record that the petitioner had joined the appellant-bank as Cashier on 20.2.1962. He eventually rose to the post of Manager by the year 1978. He has been a patient of Angina and underwent operation of Rotablator Angioplasty at the Apollo Hospital, Madras in the year 1992. His health deteriorated on account of an L.P.A. No. 242 of 2011(O&M) -2- accident which took place in December 1995 and due to which his Angina problem was also aggravated. He underwent a medical check up on 22.4.1997 at the Metro Hospital and Heart Institute at Noida, which revealed blockade of two blood vessels. He was advised immediate surgery. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Metro Hospital and Heart Institute at Noida and was operated on 29.5.1997. A stent was implanted in one main artery of heart, which cost him about Rs.62,500/-. He was discharged from the hospital on 30.5.1997 but he suffered another heart attack on 31.5.1997 as a result of which heavy damage was caused to his heart. He was kept under intensive care in Bhargava Cardiac Nursing Centre, Chandigarh upto 3.6.1997 and again referred to Metro Hospital at Noida for immediate treatment. The petitioner- respondent has attached a copy of the summary alongwith the bills for reimbursement, which came to Rs.1,51,662.30 Ps. The appellant-bank had paid him a sum of Rs.62,500/- being the cost of operation and denied the balance payment. It is pertinent to mention that on account of seriousness of the disease, the writ petitioner-respondent had already applied for voluntary retirement from service by issuing notice dated 7.2.1997 (P-8). However, he was given voluntary retirement on 31.5.1997. 3. The learned Single Judge has accepted the prayer of the writ petitioner-respondent holding that the petitioner was operated upon while he was in service and had suffered second attack also while in L.P.A. No. 242 of 2011(O&M) -3- service, therefore, once the disease started while the petitioner was in service, merely because within a short span the petitioner had been voluntary retired cannot be a ground to deny reimbursement of his pay, medical expenses for the ailment, which continued upto 13.6.1997. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 16.4.1998 rejecting the claim made by the petitioner-respondent and issued directions to the appellant-bank to reimburse the balance amount of Rs.1,51,660.30 Ps. incurred by the petitioner-respondent on his treatment. However, the amount of Rs.62,550/- which had already been paid, was to be deducted. The writ petitioner-respondent was also held entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount from the date of submission of his bills till the date of realization. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that once the petitioner-respondent has underwent surgery on 30.5.1997 and has also suffered another heart attack on 31.5.1997 then no argument could be advanced by Mr. Goel to the effect that the petitioner-respondent was not in service. It is not denied that the request of his voluntary retirement has been accepted w.e.f. 31.5.1997. Obviously 31.5.1997 would be regarded as the last date in service. Therefore, the argument would fall flat on its face that the petitioner-respondent was not in service and the regulation of the bank/policy did not permit grant of reimbursement of medical bills after retirement. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge do not L.P.A. No. 242 of 2011(O&M) -4- suffer from any legal infirmity warranting any interference by this Court. The appeal does not merit admission and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. 5. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S.MANN ) February 14, 2011 JUDGE ajay-I