IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6046 of 2006 RAMANUGRAH SINGH Versus THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. R N Mukhopadhaya For the Bank : M/S Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha and Sunil Kumar Singh --- 05. 09.09.2008 Rejection of bill of Rs.39, 428/- under the improved medical aid scheme of the petitioner’s claim is the cause of the present litigation. The order in question is contained in annexure-1. Many a submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner but the Court need not delve into the details of such submissions. The primary reason which has weighed with the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner has been that he had undergone surgery at Indore despite rejection of his earlier request by the competent authority. The Courts gets a feeling that this was the dominant reason why the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Though, no doubt, in the counter affidavit many things have been stated which can be a reason for rejection but if the reasons did not figure in the order under challenge, then those reasons cannot be read into the impugned order as ground of rejection. It is not disputed that there is a provision for post facto approval also. The Court therefore directs the competent authority in this regard to examine the claim of the petitioner with the purpose of may be granting post facto sanction and even consider whether bill raised by him if it found to be on higher side due to petitioner’s - 2 - indiscretion of getting himself operated at Indore, can be granted for reimbursement based on the charges which may be available for such a surgery within local circle of the bank in question. If it is a case of total non-entitlement in terms of the scheme then the authority may indicate the relevant provisions under which the petitioner is not entitled to claim reimbursement. The Court would not direct the respondents to accept the claim of the petitioner in its entirety if it is not in accordance with the rules. Since the matter relates to year 2006, it is hoped and expected that a final decision will be communicated to the petitioner within three months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed of with the above direction. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)