PARITOSH BANERJEE Vs. UOI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a very small thing for which the applicant approached this Court. The learned Tribunal declared entitlement in favour of the applicant but did not grant the complete relief as has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The fact of the case is that the applicant being a retired employee had undergone a surgery at a hospital outside the city, namely, at Mumbai and he undertook his journey with an attendant by Air to receive such treatment as per the advice of the attending Doctor. The applicant prays for reimbursement of the expenditure for journey. Learned Tribunal held further that he is entitled to Railway Fare not Air. The applicant was the patient cancer and some times immediate arrival at the Medical Centre is required and for this reason Air travel may be necessary or even after performance of surgery or critical medical treatment one cannot afford to face the hazards of railway journey and under the advice he had to come back by Air, In this case it had happened so.

(3.) Rule 1 of Appendix VII deals with Travelling Allowance for Medical Attendance and/or Treatment. In Medical Attendance Rules of Central Government which is compiled in Swamy's Book in 29th Edition. The said Rule 1 provides for reimbursement of expenditure for undertaking journey not only by Railway by Air also. Under such circumstances, we do not find any reason why reimbursement for undertaking jourpey by Air has not been allowed by the learned lawyer. No reason has been assigned by the learned Tribunal.