JUDGMENT
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the deduction of Rs. 65,364/- from his retirement benefits on account of payments made for his specialized threatment held in Idraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi and has accordingly sought for direction to the respondent-Bank to pay the said amount.
2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner, who retired on 1-4-2001 from the service of the State Bank of India while posted as MMG-III Officer in the Zonal Office, Patna, suffered from Craniopharyngiona and Panypopatnisarison (Brain Tumour) associated with various other serious complications during the end of 1997. He consulted the Bank’s Medical Officer, who referred his case for specialized treatment in Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi as there was no arrangement for treatment of such diseases locally.
3. It is claimed that the petitioner called for estimate of the expenditure from the authorities of the Hospital who submitted an estimate of Rs. 1,75,000/- for the treatment inclusive of consultations, medicines and bed charges etc, The Deputy General Manager of the Bank (respondent No. 8), vide letter No. DGM/PER/P/BBC/ HO/1047 dated 9-1-1998 (Annexure 3), approved the expenditure to the extent of Rs. 1,75,000/- for treatment of the petitioner subject to a ceiling of Rs. 1,75,000/- with clear Instruction to pay 100% of all admissible medical expenses directly to the Hospital/Doctor/Medical Stores, as the case may be. In the said letter Idraprastha Apollo Hospital is mentioned as the name of the Hospital/Nursing House.
4. The petitioner was admitted in the said Hospital on 14-1-1998 and was discharged after successful treatment on 24-1-1998. He submitted bills of Rs. 1,61,533/- which were scrutinised and approved by the Bank’s Medical Officer for reimbursement and, in fact, were paid. The petitioner later opted for voluntary retirement under VRS.with effect from 1-4-2001 and thereafter, the respondent-authorities of the Bank decided to re-open the medical bills already reimbursed in early 1998 for the specialized treatment and approved only Rs. 96,169/- against the said medical bills and recovered a sum of Rs. 65,364/- out of the retirement benefits, The petitioner submitted several representations requesting the authority of the Bank not to recover the said amount as he was entitled for full reimbursement of the medical bills and also cited the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Veena Sharma v. State Bank of India, (C. W. J.C. No. 256 of 2000), but there was no response and as such has filed the present writ petition for the aforementioned relief.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank in which the facts regarding suffering of the petitioner from brain tumour, treatment in the Hospital and payment of Rs. 1,61,533/- by the Bank for his treatment as per the bill of the Hospital are not disputed. However, according to the Bank, reimbursement of the medigal bill in the Bank is permissible In terms of Rule 24 of the State Bank of India Officers (Terms and Conditions of Services) Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) and as per Rule 24 (8) of the Rules, the Hospital and Nursing Home Fees are to be reimbursed by the Bank to a reasonable extent depending on the statue (category) of the Officer. It is stated that respondent iank in the light of the Rules issued circular vide Circular No. DDO/PM/GIR/20 dated 27-6-1996 inpprporating
the admissible charges for different grade of officers with a view to maintain uniformity. It is further stated that the Bank’s decision is that reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by officers should be limited to room rent up to specified ceiling for various grades of officers and as such curtailment of the bill does not amount to any curtailment of the medical benefit. It excludes the add on expenditure connected with rooms carrying higher rent which basically covers expensive non-medical facilities. It is also stated that the petitioner at the material time was an officer in Middle Management Grade III (MMG III) and as per his entitlement under the rules of the Bank, he was entitled for reimbursement of bed charges in the Hospital in between Rs. 650/- to Rs. 950/- and accordingly was entitled to receive his treatment in general ward at Apollo Hospital which further entitled him for reimbursement of Doctor’s fee at the rate of 50% less than what is charged i the Deluxe Room. It is stated that the petitioner took his treatment in the Deluxe Room on his own and not with the permission of the Bank. While processing the application for voluntary retirement and for calculating the retiral dues, it was so found that the medical bills were reimbursed with an excess amount of Rs. 65,364/- and as such the same was recovered which is correct and justified, according to the Bank.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no question of petitioner’s taking; his treatment in the Deluxe Room on his own and not with the permission of the Bank, He submitted that for entire expenditure, the estimate from the Hospital was submitted by the petitioner along with his application and the same was approved by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank vide Annexure 3 without any stipulation that the petitioner can only get him treated in the General Ward and not as per the advice of the Doctor in the Hospital. It is submitted that the Bank has not furnished any evidence in support of their claim that the petitioner took his treatment in the Deluxe Room on his own and not with the permission of the Bank. The Deputy General Manager considering the seriousness of the disease of the petitioner approved for his treatment.in the Hospital and sanctioned Rs. 1,75,000/-for reimbursement subject to a ceiling of the said amount. Learned Counsel further submitted that in any view of the matter, this Court in the case of Smt. Veena Sharma v. The State Bank of India, reported in 2001 (3) PLJR 329, relying on the various decisions of the Apex Court has held that linking the limits of medical reimbursement with the status of the employees/officers is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and that it cannot be said that a person suffering from the same illness requires lesser treatment/facilities and should be reimbursed at lesser rates because his status as an employee/officer is lower than others. It has further been held that fixing the limits of reimbursement on account of room charges cannot be said to be in accordance with law in view of the decision of the Apex Court referred to in the Judgment (State of Punjab v. Mahendra Singh Chawala, AIR 1987 SC 1225 : JT 1997 (1) SC 416. The learned Court also held Rule 24 (6) and the Guidelines fixing the so-called reasonable limits on the reimbursement of the expenses on account of stay in the hospital in course of treatment not to be in accordance with Article 21, of the Constitution and making it dependable on the status of the Officer not to be in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution and, further, suggested that the Bank would do well to amend the relevant part of the Rules and Guidelines so as to be in conformity with the constitutional provisions.
7. Learned Counsel for the Bank, however, submitted that against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Veena Sharma v. State Bank of India (supra), L. P.A. filed by the Bank has been admitted and is pending consideration by the Division Bench of this Court. However, he did not refer to any order staying the operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Further he relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga,
reported in AIR 1998 SC 1703, and in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board v. Jasbir Singh, reported in AIR 1999 SC 979 : (1999) 2 SCC 551, to defend the action of the Bank in directing for recovery to be made from the retirement benefits of the petitioner.
8. I am unable to appreciate as to how the said decisions are at all applicable to the facts of the present case where undisputedly the petitioner submitted the estimate bill which clearly indicated everything in detail and the same was approved and sanction of Rs. 1,75,000/- was accorded for reimbursement subject to a ceiling of Rs. 1,75,000/- by the Deputy General Manager, vide Annexure 3, for treatment of the petitioner in Idraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi without making any change in the earlier. Moreover, payment has already been made much before the petitioner opted for VRS and it was only after he exercised his option for VRS that such deduction is sought to be made almost after three years. In any view of the matter, since in the case of Smt. Veena Sharma v. State Bank of India (supra) Rule 24 (6) of the Rules of the Bank and the Guidelines fixing the so-called reasonable limits on the reimbursement of the expenses on account of stay in the hospital in course of treatment have been held to be not in accordance with Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution, I do not find any justification for the Bank to make recovery of the said amount until the said decision is not overruled.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent-Bank is directed to pay to the petitioner Rs. 65,364/-, which has been deducted from his retirement benefits, within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this judgment/order, subject to final outcome of the decision of the Division Bench in L.P.A. which, according to the learned Counsel for the Bank, is pending before this Court. It is made clear that in case of success of the Bank in the L.P.A., the petitioner will have to refund the said amount, but the Bank shall not charge any interest on the same. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.