Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors

the Transport Department of Punjab on 10th

October, 1983. On 21st December, 2003, while on

duty on a Punjab Roadways bus, which was coming

from Amritsar to Jalandhar, the bus met with an

accident in which many passengers and also the

appellant received grievous injuries. On being

taken to hospital, extensive facial damage was

noted, together with bone injuries, all over 2

appellant's body. After initial treatment, he

was discharged from the hospital on 15th January,

2004, but the doctors advised him complete bed

rest for a period of three months. On 13th

February, 2004, the appellant made a request to

the respondent No. 2 to sanction him leave as he

was unable to attend his duties and furnished a

copy of the certificate issued by the doctors in

the hospital in support of his request. In

reply to the request made by the appellant, the

respondent No.2 by his order of even date

indicated that the appellant had been sanctioned

leave for the period from 22nd December, 2003 to

15th January, 2004 and thereafter leave had been

sanctioned without pay from 16th January, 2004 to

15th March, 2004. In view of the said order, the

appellant was not paid his salary after 16th

January, 2004. The appellant made a

representation to the respondent No.2 against

his said order of 13th February, 2004 and

requested that his salary be paid for the period

during which he was undergoing treatment. 3

3. On 1st April, 2004, the appellant was once

again admitted to a Nursing Home for corrective

treatment of his face and he was discharged on

6th April, 2004, and a certificate to that

effect was issued by the Nursing Home

authorities. According to the appellant, he had

spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the operation and

other expenses in the Nursing Home.

4. The appellant claims that he had undergone

treatment in different hospitals and had

incurred medical bills amounting to

Rs.1,57,000/-. Since no payment was being made

despite the medical bills having been submitted,

the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 13943 of

2005, questioning the inaction of the

respondents and prayed for a direction on the

respondents to pay his dues together with

interest at the rate of 18% from the due date

till the date of actual payment. The Writ

Petition was dismissed on 26th September, 2005,

in the absence of appellant's counsel with a

direction to the respondents to pay to the 4

appellant the settled amount of Rs.58,498/- and

that the appellant would be entitled to claim

the balance amount of his total claim before the

competent authority. According to the

appellant, out of the total claim of

Rs.1,57,000/- he was paid a sum of Rs.58,498 as

sanctioned by the respondent authorities. A

Review Application filed in respect of the said

order was also dismissed on 18th October, 2005.

The present Appeals are directed against both

the said orders dismissing the Writ Petition as

also the Review Petition.

5. It will be apparent from what has been stated

hereinabove that the two questions to be

considered in these appeals are whether the

appellant would be entitled to the reimbursement

of the total medical expenses incurred by him

and also whether he would be entitled to his

salary during the period of his hospitalization,

even though no medical or earned leave or half-

pay leave was available to him.

5

6. Appearing in support of the appeals, Mr. R.K.

Talwar, learned advocate, submitted that since

the appellant had met with a near fatal accident

and had to be hospitalized while on duty and

since he had been prevented from attending his

duties on account thereof, the appellant's case

was different from other cases in that he did

not willfully stayed-away from duties but was

prevented by circumstances which were beyond his

control from doing so. Mr. Talwar submitted

that the Leave Rules as relied upon by

respondent No.2 in sanctioning leave without pay

for the period after 16th January, 2004, were

applicable in ordinary cases where the employee

stayed away from work voluntarily. It was urged

that a distinction would have to be made between

such cases and cases like the present case where

the employee had no choice in the matter and was

prevented from performing his duties on account

of uncontrollable circumstances. Mr. Talwar

also submitted that, in any event, the

respondent No. 2 was bound to pay the medical

expenses incurred by the appellant on account of 6

the severe injuries suffered by him while on

duty. Mr. Talwar submitted that the High Court

had erred in allowing the respondent-company to

deposit the sum of Rs.58,498/- only as there was

no reason for the High Court to treat the

settled amount differently from the total claim

of the appellant. Mr. Talwar urged that the

said order of the High Court has generated the

controversy in the instant appeals and that this

is a fit case for interference by this Court.

7. On the other hand, on behalf of the

respondent, Mr. Anil Grover, learned advocate,

submitted that the two questions indicated

hereinbefore in paragraph 5 had been adequately

answered in the impugned judgment and the order

of the High Court did not warrant any

interference. Mr. Grover submitted further that

the total claim of the appellant had been

considered and had been divided between dues,

which were admittedly payable, and those which

were disputed and the High Court had left it

open to the appellant to seek his remedy as to 7

the remaining balance of his claim before the

competent authority.

8. Mr. Grover submitted that no prejudice has

been caused to the appellant by the order of the

High Court impugned in these appeals and it had

been left to the competent authority to decide

the balance claim.

9. Having considered the submissions made on

behalf of the respective parties, it appears to

us that the concerned respondents had dealt with

the appellant's claim in accordance with the

Rules governing the service of the appellant and

it was for the appellant to establish that he

was entitled to reimbursement of the entire

amount of the medical expenses which had been

incurred by him from his own resources during

his treatment in hospital. It goes without

saying that if the full claim of the appellant

was admissible there would have been no

controversy in the matter. At the time of the

settlement of the appellant's claim, it is only 8

to be expected that the Rules regarding

entitlement of reimbursement on account of

medical expenses had been considered while

arriving at a final decision. Since a dispute

has been raised as to the appellant's to the

entire medical expenses incurred by him during

his treatment, the High Court has quite rightly

remitted the matter to the competent authority,

entrusted to deal with such matters, to arrive

at a decision in the appellant's case. It is

difficult for the writ Court to take upon itself

an investigative mantle in order to find out

whether the appellant's claim for reimbursement

of the entire medical expenses incurred by him

during treatment was valid or not. Such an

enquiry can be undertaken by the authority which

has been entrusted with such work.

10. We do not, therefore, see any error in the

approach of the High Court in its writ

jurisdiction. In our view, the decision of the

appellant's claim has been rightly left to the

competent authority and does not warrant any 9

change. We, therefore, dismiss the appeals, but

we also indicate that the appellant will be

entitled to make a fresh representation to the

competent authority in regard to his claims

within three months from date, and, if such

representation is made, the same is to be

decided by the competent authority within two

months from the date of receipt of such

representation, after giving the parties a

reasonable opportunity of hearing. We reiterate

that the order that is to be passed upon the

fresh representation shall be a reasoned order

and upon taking into consideration the Rules

relating to the service conditions of the

appellant.

11. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

________________J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR)

________________J.

10

(MARKANDEY KATJU)

New Delhi Dated:16.12.2008