SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. B. Majmudar and D. P. Mohapatra, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. Nil of 1999, (arising out of S.L.P.No.20649 of 1997). D/d. 22.1.1999.

Secretary, Irrigation and Power, Govt. of Punjab and others - Appellants

Versus

Surjit Singh - Respondent

Constitution of India, Articles 16 and 47 - Public Employment - Medical expences - Medical reimbursement - New policy of reimbursement dated 13.2.1995 laying down that for treatment out side Chandigarh reimbursement will be according to rates prevalent in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) - Policy already held vaild by Apex Court - Employee undergone bypass surgery in Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi after new policy of 13.2.1995 came into force-Employee entitled to be reimbursed only at AIIMS rates.

[Paras 3 and 4]

Cases Referred :-

State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117 : 1998 Lab IC 1555).

JUDGMENT

No one appeared for the respondent to oppose these proceedings today. By an earlier dated 1-12-1997 this S.L.P. along with other matters was to be listed for final disposal. That is how it was placed for final disposal today.

2. Leave granted. The appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

3. The question involved in this appeal is squarely covered in favour of the appellant State by three Judge Bench decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117 : 1998 Lab IC 1555. By the said judgment this Court had upheld the constitutional validity of the new policy of reimbursement, dated 13-2-1995 in connection with medical expenses incurred by the State Government servants when they have to take treatment outside Chandigarh.

4. It is not in dispute that the respondent had suffered heart ailment and had undergone bypass surgery on 10-4-1996 in Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi. As this medical treatment was taken by the respondent after the new policy of 13-2-1995 came into vouge, the aforesaid decision would squarely apply against the respondent. He would be entitled to be reimbursed only at AIIMS rates.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, states that the respondent has already been reimbursed the medical expenses at AIIMS rates. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in terms of the aforesaid decision. If any additional reimbursement is given to the respondent, that obviously will not have to be refunded by him as laid down therein. No costs.

Order accordingly.