IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7323-7324 2008 @ S.L.P. (C) NOs. 1011-1012 of 2006

Ranjit Singh …Appellant

Vs.

State of Punjab & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

ALTAMAS KABIR,J.

1. Leave granted.

2.    The appellant was appointed as a conductor in

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

1

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.   

2

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

3

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.  

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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.

9

(MARKANDEY KATJU) New Delhi Dated:16.12.2008

10