L.P.A. No. 653 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 653 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: May 18, 2010 Central Bank of India and others Appellants Versus Krishna Gupta and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. A.P. Jagga, Advocate for the appellants Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate for the caveator 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. C.M. No. 1892 of 2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the appeal For the reasons recorded in application, delay of 42 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. C.M. is allowed. L.P.A. No. 653 of 2010 1. In the present Letters Patent Appeal order impugned is dated 17.12.2009 passed by learned Single Judge, thereby allowing the CWP No. 18184 of 2008, setting aside the order dated 22.7.2008 discharging the services of the petitioner on account of physical disability incurred by him. L.P.A. No. 653 of 2010 (O&M) 2 2. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner was appointed as Clerk with the appellant Bank on 28.5.1973 and thereafter promoted as Computer Terminal Operator (CTO) in the year 2002; petitioner met with an accident which resulted in paralysis on 29.1.2004; petitioner suffered disability of more than 90% on account of paralysis; petitioner made claim under Clause 18(iv) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 31.10.2007; A further request was made for reimbursement of the medical expenses; Bank passed the impugned order dated 22.7.2008 invoking Clause 522 of Shastri Award informing the petitioner that his services would stand terminated on expiry of three months period of notice/order dated 22.7.2008. 3. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 22.7.2008, petitioner had approached this Court and learned Single Judge while relying upon Section 47 of the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 allowed the writ petition vide impugned judgment. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has very fairly stated that as far as invocation of Section 47 of the Act 1995 is concerned, learned Single Judge has committed no illegality. However, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since petitioner was injured while going back to his residence from duty, he can not be treated on duty, hence, petitioner is not entitled for reimbursement of the medical expenses. 6. From the perusal of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge, we find that this argument was not raised before learned Single Judge. 7. In view of the fact that arguments raised before us was not raised before learned Single Judge and petitioner has died due to injury L.P.A. No. 653 of 2010 (O&M) 3 suffered by him, we are not inclined to go into the question raised before us for the first time in the present L.P.A. 8. Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that observation of learned Single Judge that petitioner is entitled for full medical reimbursement for the injuries sustained by him while going back to his home from the Bank shall not be treated as precedent in future cases. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 18.05.2010 JUDGE reena