PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State Bank of India.

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved because the respondent State Bank of India has duducted a sum of Rs. 2,27,132.00/ - from petitioner. As per the respondents this deduction has been made because petitioner was not entitled to the room rent in question which was charged by Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. This is the amount which is over and above the entitlement of petitioner. Petitioner submits that thereafter he has taken voluntary retirement from the bank and despite his request and claim this amount was not paid or adjusted at the time of leaving the service of the bank.

(3.) PETITIONER 'ssubmission is that he was referred to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi on the advice of medical practitioner approved by the State Bank of India and based on the medical advice of the treating doctor he was under treatment and he had availed the medical facility from the concerned hospital. Subsequently on submission of the bill given by the Apollo Hospital the State Bank of India in its wisdom deducted the above sum as not payable because it was beyond the so called entitlement of petitioner insofar as the room rent was concerned. According to petitioner this is a wrong interpretation which has been given by the bank because as per Rule 24(2) his medical benefits are reimbursable in full and Rule 24(6) is unnecessarily invoked in the present matter. Petitioner draws my attention to the judgment dated 20.6.2001 to show that identical submission was made by respondent bank in the above case and the same was noted and answered against the bank in the judgment of Hon ble learned Single Judge. Hon ble Single Judge after taking note of the submission made on behalf of the respondent held that petitioner was entitled to complete reimbursement. The Court had thus say and observe in para -9: