# State of U.P. & Ors v. Sunder Singh Solanki & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 716
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-12
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 271 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ritu Raj Awasthi, Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-sunder-singh-solanki-anr-47297
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Shailendra
Singh
Rajawat,
Shubham
Tripathi

A. Service Law - Reimbursement of
medical
bills
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servants
(Medical
and
Attendance) Rules, 2011 - The amount
of the medical bills shall be paid in terms
of 'Uttar Pradesh Government Servants
(Medical and Attendance) Rules, 2011',
particularly when the earlier Government
orders operating the field were not adequate
to grant the reimbursement of medical bills
and
expenses
incurred
by
Government
Servants and the Government itself had
framed these Rules for that purpose. (Para
11)

The Government Servant cannot be denied
the benefit of said Rules simply because at
the time of accident the said Rules were
not applicable. The Rules shall be made
available to all such cases where the
reimbursement of the medical bills and
expenses have not been settled by the
Government and the decision is pending in
this regard. (Para 12)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-3)
Present appeal assails the judgment and
order
dated
25.01.2021,
passed
by
learned Single Judge.

## Text

716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2021)08ILR A716
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 271 of 2021

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Sunder Singh Solanki & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shailendra
Singh
Rajawat,
Shubham
Tripathi

A. Service Law - Reimbursement of
medical
bills
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servants
(Medical
and
Attendance) Rules, 2011 - The amount
of the medical bills shall be paid in terms
of 'Uttar Pradesh Government Servants
(Medical and Attendance) Rules, 2011',
particularly when the earlier Government
orders operating the field were not adequate
to grant the reimbursement of medical bills
and
expenses
incurred
by
Government
Servants and the Government itself had
framed these Rules for that purpose. (Para
11)

The Government Servant cannot be denied
the benefit of said Rules simply because at
the time of accident the said Rules were
not applicable. The Rules shall be made
available to all such cases where the
reimbursement of the medical bills and
expenses have not been settled by the
Government and the decision is pending in
this regard. (Para 12)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-3)
Present appeal assails the judgment and
order
dated
25.01.2021,
passed
by
learned Single Judge.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
&
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)

1. Mr. Shailendra Singh Rajawat,
Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of
respondent no.1 and Mr. Shubham Tripathi,
Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of
respondent no.2, as such, no steps are
required to be taken for service of notices
on respondents.

2. Heard learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr.
Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 as
well as Mr. Shubham Tripathi, learned
counsel for respondent no.2.

3. This intra court appeal has been
filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of
Allahabad
High
Court
Rules,
1952,
challenging the judgment and order dated
25.01.2021, passed by learned Single Judge
in Writ Petition No.6063 (SS) of 2017;
Sunder Singh Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and
others.whereby the writ petition preferred
by respondent no.1 has been allowed and
the impugned order dated 29.09.2016 has
been set aside.

4. The special appeal has been filed
with a reported delay of 166 days as on the
date of filing of special appeal on
9.8.2021.The
special
appeal
is
accompanied with an application for
condonation of delay supported with an
affidavit.

5. The cause shown in the affidavit
filed
in
support
of
application
for
8 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sunder Singh Solanki & Anr.
717
condonation of delay is sufficient and more
particularly considering the Apex Court's
order dated 27.04.2021, passed in Misc.
Application No.665 of 2021 in SMW (C)
No.3 of 2020; Cognizance for Extension of
Limitation
Vs.
XXXX,
we
find
it
appropriate to condone the delay.

6. Application for condonation of
delay (C.M. Application No.96200 of
2021) is accordingly allowed. Delay in
filing of special appeal is hereby condoned.
Office is directed to provide a regular
number to the appeal.

Order on memo of Special Appeal:

7.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants
submits that the learned Single Judge has
grossly erred in holding that the respondent
no.1 is entitled to get the reimbursement of
medical bills in terms of 'Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servants
(Medical
and
Attendance) Rules, 2011'. It is submitted
that the aforesaid Rules had come into
force on 2.9.2011, whereas the accident had
taken place on 26.07.2010, as such, the
respondent no.1 was not entitled to get the
reimbursement as per the said Rules. The
respondent
was
entitled
to
get
the
reimbursement as per the Government
Order dated 26.07.2001 and accordingly
the amount of reimbursement of medical
bills to the tune of Rs.1,48,340/- has been
calculated and the same has been paid to
the respondent no.1. It is also submitted
that under the 'Uttar Pradesh Government
Servants (Medical and Attendance) Rules,
2011' now a provision has been made for
reimbursement of the entire medical bills in
case the treatment has been made in a
private hospital outside the State. It is
submitted that since the said Rules are
applicable prospectively i.e. after coming
into force of the said Rules, as such, the
respondent no.1 was not entitled to get the
reimbursement of medical bills as per the
said Rules.

8. Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, learned
counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
respondent no.1, on the other hand, submits
that the respondent no.1 is a police officer. He
had met with an accident on road on
26.07.2010 while on duty of patrolling. The
accident was so serious that the respondent
no.1 was admitted to Trauma Centre in King
George Medical University, Lucknow and
from there he was airlifted to Indraprashtha
Appollo Hospital, New Delhi, where he
undergone
the
treatment
and
after
a
prolonged illness of approximately ten
months, he was able to join his duties. It was
not that the respondent no.1 on his sweet will
had gone to the private hospital for treatment
but
it
was
only
under
compelling
circumstances as the advance treatment was
not available in the Government Hospital. It
is also submitted that the State Government
has framed 'Uttar Pradesh Government
Servants (Medical and Attendance) Rules,
2011' for the purpose of reimbursement of the
medical bills for the government employees
as well as attendant after treating the earlier
government orders being inadequate in this
regard.

9. The submission is that once the
provision is available for reimbursement of
the amount as per the medical bills and the
expenses incurred by respondent no.1, then
it shall not be denied to him simply because
on the date when the respondent no.1 met
with accident the said Rules were not in
operation.

10.

We
have
considered
the
submissions made by parties' counsel and
gone through the records.
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. We are of the considered view that
the learned Single Judge has rightly taken
the view that the amount of the medical
bills of the respondent no.1 shall be paid in
terms of 'Uttar Pradesh Government
Servants (Medical and Attendance) Rules,
2011',
particularly
when
the
earlier
government orders operating the field were
not adequate to grant the reimbursement of
medical bills and expenses incurred by
Government Servants and the Government
itself had framed these Rules for that
purpose.

12. It is to be noted that the
Government Servant cannot be denied the
benefit of said Rules simply because at the
time of accident the said Rules were not
applicable. The 'Uttar Pradesh Government
Servants (Medical and Attendance) Rules,
2011' shall be made available to all such
cases where the reimbursement of the
medical bills and expenses have not been
settled by the Government and the decision
is pending in this regard.

13. The special appeal, with these
observations is dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A718
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 4847 of 2021

Kishan Singh Hyanki ...Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman, L.I.C, Mumbai Central
Office, Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vishal Agrawal
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Siddharth Singhal, Ms. Divya Chaurasia

A.
Service
Law
-
Departmental
Enquiry/Dismissal - L.I.C. of India (Staff)
Regulations, 1960 - In the case of
misconduct of a bank officer or employee,
including
the
Corporation,
if
the
officer/employee is found guilty of any
kind
of
the
financial
irregularities
irrespective of the amount involved, no
punishment
less
than
dismissal/termination should be passed.
Any plea of leniency or sympathy regarding the
quantum of amount or nature of misconduct is
totally misplaced. (Para 22)

B. financial misconduct by an employee of
a
financial
institution,
is
a
serious
misconduct. Corporation lost faith, confidence
and trust in the petitioner and in such
circumstances continuing him as an employee
on the post of Cashier would jeopardise the
interest of the Corporation and expose genuine
policy holders to risk of fraudulent transactions.
(Para 13, 15, 16)

Quantum of embezzlement is not relevant,
it is the act of committing embezzlement
that
determines
the
quantum
of
punishment. (Para 14)

C. Scope of Judicial Review - A High
Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction
u/Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot
sit in appeal over the findings of fact
recorded by a competent Tribunal in a
properly conducted departmental enquiry
except when it be shown that the
impugned findings were not supported by
any evidence. Whether or not the evidence on
which the Tribunal relied was satisfactory and
sufficient for justifying its conclusion would not
fall to be considered in a writ petition. (Para 18)

The jurisdiction is circumscribed and
confined to correct errors of law or
procedural error, if any, resulting in
manifest
miscarriage
of
justice
or
violation of principles of natural justice.
This apart, even when some defect is found in
the decision-making process, the Court must