Amarjit Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The petitioners, who are sons of late Dharampal, have sought a direction to the respondents for release of full pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits accrued to their father who was working as Kanoongo in the office of respondent No. 2. It is submitted that late Dharampal entered into service in the year 1958 and was to retire in the year 1998. However, in the year 1993, one FIR No. 76 dated 18.08.1993, under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was registered against late Dharampal on account of which he was suspended from service on 20.09.1993. He was convicted on 20.11.1996 by the Special Judge, Roopnagar and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 3 years. Following his conviction, he was dismissed from service on 11.04.1997. He challenged the order of his conviction by way of appeal bearing Crl. Appeal No. 772-SB of 1996 before this Court.

During the pendency of his appeal before this Court and after dismissal from service, late Dharampal had a by-pass surgery of his heart in the year 2005 and unfortunately he expired on 29.10.2008. Ultimately, the appeal filed by him was allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2010 and he was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Immediately, thereafter, on 30.05.2010 an application was filed by the legal heirs of late Dharampal for release of his pension, gratuity etc. Insofar as the pension and gratuity is concerned, the same has been paid but the medical reimbursement has been declined on the ground that it is a belated claim as per Rule 58 of the Medical Attendance Rules of 1940 wherein it is provided that in case of claims not preferred within the period of six months, the Controlling Officer while countersigning the bill, should record a certificate on the bill that he is satisfied with the reason of delay explained by the Officer/Official and he was not personally responsible for the delay. Such cases are referable to the Health Department and the Controlling Officers are fully competent to dispose of such claims.

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there was no delay on the part of the petitioners in submitting the medical claims because their father was got operated in the year 2005 while he was dismissed from service and at that time he could not have submitted his medical bills. However, as soon as he was acquitted on 10.03.2010 and resultantly deemed to have been re-instated, the medical bills were submitted on 30.05.2010 which should be construed to have been submitted within a period of six months. He has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Baljinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajwant Kaur Vs. State of Punjab to contend that the medical reimbursement claim should not be declined merely on the ground of delay.

Learned State counsel submits that the respondents are bound by Rule 58 of the Rules in which it is provided that all the medical claims can be preferred only within a period of six months from the date it accrues to the employee. It is submitted that there is no fault on the part of the respondents in declining the medical claim of the petitioners.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no delay on the part of the petitioners in submitting the medical bills as the circumstances were beyond their control. Late Dharampal was to retire in the year 1998 but on account of his involvement in a false criminal case registered in the year 1993, he was suspended from service and on account of his conviction on 20.11.1996, dismissed from service on 11.04.1997. He challenged the order of his conviction by way of Crl. Appeal No. 772-SB of 1996. During the pendency of his appeal, he had to undergo by-pass surgery of his heart in the year 2005. Even during that period he was under dismissal and could not have submitted his medical bills for the purpose of reimbursement. However, his appeal was allowed by this Court on 10.03.2010 and he was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The medical bills were submitted by the petitioners for reimbursement on 30.05.2010. Thus, there was hardly any delay on the part of the petitioners to claim medical reimbursement as the same were filed within 2 months of the order of acquittal of late Dharampal, which resulted into the removal of eclipse which has been caused vide order dated 20.11.1996 when he was convicted by the Special Judge, Roopnagar. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider medical bills/claims of late Dharampal, submitted by the petitioners, and reimburse the amount to the petitioners in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.