SAROJINI SAWHNEY Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at motion stage.

(2.) Husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") retired from State Bank of India on 30.9.2000. While in service, the deceased developed the ailment known as ALM -2 (Cancer) in the year 1999. He remained under treatment at the P.G.I., Chandigarh, during the service time of the deceased, the petitioner did not claim, any reimbursement of the expenses incurred on his treatment as he was entitled to claim the same from his employer. However, after retirement of the deceased on 30.9.2000, the deceased continued to receive treatment at the P.G.I., Chandigarh from 14.12.2002 to 28.1.2003. He was lastly given medical treatment at INSCOL, Sector 34, Chandigarh. He unfortunately expired on 11.3.2003. In the State Bank of India, there is no -provision for reimbursement of medical expenses of the retired employees. However, under the State Bank of India Retired Employees Medical Benefit Scheme, a member is entitled to claim upto Rs. 2.00 lacs on account of medical treatment either for himself or his spouse. Since the deceased was member of the Scheme, he was entitled to claim upto Rs. 2.00 lacs on account of the expenses incurred on his medical treatment. The petitioner is said to have spent approximately Rs. 4,13,514.25 on the treatment of the deceased. She submitted the claim for reimbursement to the State Bank of India and she was promptly paid the sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs vide Cheque No. 344050 dated 29.7.2003. She, therefore, submitted the remaining claim to the respondent -University on 5.5.2003. She was informed by letter dated 29.5.2003 (Annexure P -4) that her claim cannot be accepted as it is not covered under the Rule. Aggrieved against the aforesaid communication (Annexure P -4), the petitioner submitted a representation on 28.6.2003 (Annexure P -5) to the Vice -Chancellor -respondent No. 2 of the University. This representation has also been rejected and the same has been communicated to the petitioner by the Registrar -respondent No. 3 by letter dated 12.1.2004 (Annexure P -8). The petitioner thereafter served legal notice on the respondents through her Advocate on 16.3.2004 (Annexure P -9). In this legal notice, the petitioner has set out not only the relevant rules, but also the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court on a number of occasions. The legal notice has also been rejected by communication dated 28.4.2004 (Annexure P -10). The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that it is not covered under the 1940 Rules. The petitioner's claim has also been rejected on the ground that the deceased did not fall within the definition of "dependent" as given under Rule 2(xi) of the Punjab University Calendar Vol. III Edition 1996 at page 70 which is as under:

(3.) It was also observed in the order (Annexure P -10) that since the deceased was having an income of Rs. 7,000/ - per month, she would not be entitled to claim any reimbursement in view of paragraph 48(i) of the 1940 Rules. In the aforesaid Paragraph, it is provided as under: