IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.836 of 2008 IN (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 11497/2006) ======================================================= ==== 1. The State Bank Of India through its Chairman, 18th floor, State Bank of India Bhawan, Corporate centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai- 400021 2. The Chief General Manager, 7th Floor, Local Head Office, State Bank of India, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna 3. The Assistant General Manager (personnel) State Bank of India, Local Head Office, West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 ………… (Respondents)-Appellants Versus Om Prakash Sinha, son of late R.R.V.P.Sinha, resident of A-87, jagat Amrawti, Mahesh Nagar, off Bailey Road, Patna- 800001 Police Station- Kotwali, District- Patna posted as Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Begusarai branch, Begusarai (at the time of filing of the writ petition and now posted as Chief Manager, RCPC, Sasaram, District- Rohtas ………….. (Petitioner)- Respondent. ======================================================= ==== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. KAUSHLENDRA KR.SINHA & Mr. S.K.Singh, Advocates For the Respondent/s : Mr. Aditya Narain Singh & Mr. Kundan Kr. Sinha, Advocates ======================================================= ==== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for the private respondents. This intra Court Letters Patent Appeal has 2 been filed against the order dated 4.7.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11497 of 2006 (Om Prakash Sinha Versus The State Bank of India & Ors.). The writ petition came to be filed since the petitioner was aggrieved with the categorization of the officers of the respondent State Bank of India into various categories with different limits to their entitlement with regard to medical reimbursement. The contention was that even though the Rule No. 24 (2) read with Rule 24 (6) of the S.B.I. Officers Service Rules provided for reimbursement of the expenses based on actuals still by the impugned circular the limit was sought to be curtailed and a ceiling fixed as well as there was provision that various categories of officers were to be reimbursed for amounts which were different for all the three categories. The main grievance of the writ petitioner was that this sub categorization amongst officers with regard to the reimbursement was bad in law both on account of reasonableness and rationality as well as in view of the above mentioned Rule. The serious challenge was only with regard to the actual expenses incurred with regard to surgical operation. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties was pleased to hold that the impugned circular was not sustainable in the eyes of 3 law and after quashing the same directed the Bank to reimburse the officer to the extent of the entire medical or surgical expenses incurred by him. The appellant Bank in the present Appeal assails the said order on the ground that there were some factual errors in the impugned order in as much as it has been held by the learned Single Judge that the impugned order was a circular issued by the Patna Circle which was beyond its competence. He submits the fact is that the letter was issued in pursuance of the letter of the Corporate Centre at Mumbai with regard to the Patna Circle. He further submits that the same circular was issued for different circles all over India and there was no discrimination on this account. He further submits that the categorization made with regard to different amount to which the officer was entitled for reimbursement was not bad since it was based on a conscious decision for the reason that the appellant Bank opined to curtail excess expenditure on this account. In support of his contention he relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Versus Ram Lubhaya Bagga as reported in AIR 1998 SC 1703. The relevant paragraphs are 25 to 29. This Court would only indicate that in the said case the 4 challenge was that there should not be a ceiling with regard to medical reimbursement and the actuals ought to be paid. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that such fixation of ceiling was with the purpose of saving of public money and there was no illegality or unreasonableness with regard to the same. In the present case the challenge was never to the fixing the ceiling rather to the said categorization inter se amongst the officers at various levels of the Bank especially with regard to surgical operation charges. Thus the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court does not help the appellant in the present case. After hearing learned counsels for the parties, we do not find any major infirmity with the order under Appeal. However as we find that there is no rationality behind issuing the circular which is the subject matter of the writ petition, we remit the matter back to the competent authority to reconsider the matter in accordance with the Rules. We may indicate here that the categorization with regard to operations being minor, intermediate, major, major plus and supra major does not appear to be cogent and reasonable. Further the Rule does not envisage such classification. We also find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 5 that at least with regard to surgical operation there ought not to be classification with regard to ceiling limit of entitlement being different for different categories of officers. The Rules being very categorical that the medical and surgical expenses as are actually and necessarily incurred by an officer shall be reimbursed in full, any circular issued against such specific provision of the Rule cannot have the force of law and is difficult to be sustained. For the reasons discussed aforesaid we modify the order of the learned Single judge to the extent indicated above. Accordingly the Appeal stands disposed off. Patna High Court, Dated 20.07.2011 P.K./N.A.F.R. ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)