RSA No.2060 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2060 of 2006 Date of Decision: January 15, 2008 Pawan Kumar Jindal. … Appellant Versus Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another. … Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present : Mr. Mukund Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate, for the respondents. *** JUDGMENT: The plaintiff-appellant superannuated, as Deputy Manager, from the employment of respondent No.1-Bank (hereinafter referred to as the `Bank’) on 31.10.2000, after rendering service for a period of about 37 years. He presented a medical reimbursement bill for Rs. 23,830/- in respect of the treatment had by him at Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. Along there with, he also submitted a T.A. bill for Rs. 260/- in respect of his journey undertaken by him to the Headquarters on 20.11.2000 in connection with a matter pertaining to Jagroop Singh, Senior Accountant, Mansa Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Branch of Boha. RSA No.2060 of 2006 2 Out of the medical reimbursement bill, the respondents sanctioned a sum of Rs. 330/-. The balance was denied. The plaintiff-appellant filed a Civil Suit for the recovery of the amount under the above two heads. That suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court (vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2004) in respect of the medical reimbursement bill. The suit was dismissed qua the claim of the TA bill. The learned First Appellate Court, however, reversed the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge and dismissed the suit by holding that Hapatitis-B, disease for which the appellant had undergone treatment, is not included in the list of chronic diseases. The finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court deserves out-right invalidation for the reasons recorded hereunder:- It is common ground that the medical reimbursement instructions issued by the Punjab Government are adopted by the respondent-Bank. As evident from Exh.P1, a letter addressed by the General Manager, Divisional Office, Bathinda to the respondent-Bank, it was pointedly noticed by the former in the course thereof that “it is further reported that he was suffering from Ch. Hepatitis B, disease, which has been declared as `Chronic disease”. The averment made by the General Manager to the above indicated effect is also to be appreciated in the light of the instructions issued by the Director Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, on 19.12.1997 whereby it was indicated that “medicines/injections and disposable items are full re-imburseable except those which had already been declared non re-imburseable under Medical Attendance Rules,1940 and Government instructions.” There is neither an averment nor proof that RSA No.2060 of 2006 3 the above indicated injections had been declared non-reimburseable under the Medical Attendance Rules, 1940. Even otherwise, it requires pertinent notice that the defendants- respondents have not endeavoured, in any manner, to wriggle out of the averment recorded by the General Manager, Divisional Office, Bathinda (Exh.P1) to the effect that Hepatitis-B has been declared a chronic disease. In the light thereof, the finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court shall stand reversed. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge shall stand restored to the extent it relates to the entitlement of the appellant to reimbursement of the two injections (one for Rs.14,100/- and the other for Rs.9,400/-) are concerned. The appeal shall stand allowed. The judgment and decree dated 05.12.2005 of the learned First Appellate Court shall stand set aside and the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2004 of the learned Trial Court shall stand restored to the above indicated extent. The suit filed by the appellant shall stand decreed for a sum of Rs. 23,500/-. The appellant shall also be entitled to the proportionate costs of the cause throughout. January 15, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No