Bombay High Court
Dy. General Manager (Training) Mah. ... vs Krishna Prabhakar Deshpande on 13 October, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:44199
1.WP.2879.2022.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2879 OF 2022
Dy. General Manager (Training) Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation, Central
Training Institute .. Petitioner
Versus
Krishna Prabhakar Deshpande .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Nilesh Bhutekar a/w Mr. Aadiya Mahamiya, Advocate for
Petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Phatak a/w Mr. Adhik Kadam, for Respondent.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2025.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Bhutekar, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr.
Phatak, learned Advocate for Respondent.
2. Present Petition has been filed challenging Judgment dated
10.07.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Pune in I.D. Application No.
05 of 2010. Judgment dated 10.07.2019 is at Exhibit 'D' appended to
page No. 39 of the Petition.
3. Briefly stated, Respondent was appointed as steno-typist in
Petitioner - Corporation on 13.05.1982. During the course of his
employment, Respondent's wife suffered from 'Chronic Renal Failure'
and after medical consultation, she was advised to undertake kidney
1 of 16
1.WP.2879.2022.doc
transplant. Petitioner - Corporation issued circulars dated 23.04.1987,
19.09.2000, 28.09.2001 and 05.09.2002 (for short "said circulars") for
the benefits of employees and relatives which laid out guidelines with
respect to Kidney Transplantation and Operation as well as list of
authorized hospitals from where kidney transplant may be performed.
Respondent admitted his wife in Ruby Hall Clinic, one of the
authorized hospitals, and decided to donate one of his own kidneys to
his wife.
3.1. On 20.07.2003, Respondent published a public appeal
seeking financial help for the kidney transplant surgery from which he
raised a total of Rs.1,76,100/- from various Trusts and individuals. On
18.10.2003, Respondent submitted application to Petitioner -
Corporation requesting for pre - hospitalization medical aid and
Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to him. On 17.11.2003, Respondent and his
wife were admitted to Ruby Hall Clinic and on 21.11.2003, the kidney
transplant operation took place and Respondent as well as his wife
were instructed to remain in hospital for post surgery observation and
they were discharged from the hospital on 04.12.2003. However on
06.12.2003 Respondent's wife developed complications with her
surgery and was re-admitted to Ruby Hall Clinic for further treatment
and was discharged on 19.12.2003. Thereafter another medical bill
amounting to Rs.91,233/- was raised by Ruby Hall Clinic for this
second stint of hospitalization.
2 of 16
1.WP.2879.2022.doc
3.2. On 19.01.2004, Respondent submitted medical bills for
reimbursement amounting to Rs.3,82,274.76 and Rs.91,233/- issued
by Medical Officer of Ruby Hall Clinic for the surgery and
hospitalization. Petitioner - Corporation's Accounts Department
conducted internal audit and determined that bill amounting to
Rs.3,82,274.76 could be reimbursed to Respondent however upon
further scrutiny, Petitioner - Corporation reduced this amount to
Rs.3,77,739/-. Petitioner - Corporation deducted pre - hospitalization
advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- and public donations amounting to
Rs.50,589/- made by various Trusts and individuals to Respondent,
thus total sum due and payable was determined at Rs.2,29,219/-.
3.3. Petitioner - Corporation addressed letter dated 23.01.2008
to Respondent stating that he claimed double benefit of reimbursement
received through donation hence amount of Rs.1,22,054/- was to be
returned / recovered by him. Being aggrieved, Respondent filed
Application No. 5 of 2010 seeking reimbursement of Rs.2,30,306.90/-
with interest. Labour Court passed order dated 10.07.2019 allowing
the Application and directing Petitioner - Corporation to pay
Rs.2,30,306.90/- at the rate of 6 % interest from the date of
application till realization. Being aggrieved, hence present Petition.
4. Mr. Bhutekar, Advocate for Petitioner would submit that
impugned order is bad in law, perverse, illegal, passed without
3 of 16
1.WP.2879.2022.doc
appreciation of facts and deserves to be set aside. He would submit
that, at the outset, Respondent was employed as Steno-Typist in
Petitioner - Corporation and retired as Higher Grade Stenographer on
30.11.2018. He would submit that on superannuation, Petitioner -
Corporation paid Respondent's legal dues and benefits including
Gratuity, Provident Fund and Pension.
4.1. He would submit that Petitioner - Corporation issued said
circulars which laid down rules and criterion for employees and their
relatives to avail reimbursement on medicals expenses incurred on
kidney related illnesses. He would submit that Respondent's wife was
suffering from Chronic Renal Failure and was advised kidney
transplant. He would submit that Respondent issued public appeal for
financial assistance and received donations from various individuals,
trusts and other charitable entities. He would submit that kidney
transplant was a medical procedure under the purview of said circulars
therefore as Respondent was entitled to full benefit of said circulars
which included reimbursement of all medical expenses incurred during
the period of hospitalization as well as pre - hospitalization advance
payment, there was no need for Respondent to seek financial
assistance and aid from external institutions and individuals.
4.2. He would submit that Respondent submitted two medical
bills amounting to Rs.3,82,274.76/- for the period from 17.11.2003 to
4 of 16
1.WP.2879.2022.doc
04.12.2003 and Rs.91,233/- with respect to hospitalization from the
period between 06.12.2003 to 19.12.2003 as well as medication and
post operative care. He would submit that Petitioner - Corporation
sanctioned Rs.2,29,219.30/- towards medical bill amount to
Rs.3,82,274.76/- which was paid to Respondent vide cheque on
18.12.2004 and Rs.46,833/- towards medical bill amounting to
Rs.91,233/-. He would submit that only amount of Rs.44,321/- was
paid to Respondent on 12.08.2008 as he was not entitled to the
remaining amount of Rs. 47,002/- since the amount incurred on post
operation care and not on life threatening surgery as enumerated in
the said circulars.
4.3. He would submit that on 25.04.2005, Petitioner -
Corporation conducted internal audit which raised objection to
Respondent raising donations through various Trusts, charitable
institutions and individuals to the tune of Rs. 1,22,054/-. He would
submit that General Manager of Petitioner - Corporation issued
demand notice dated 23.01.2018 stating that Respondent cannot
derive double benefit of reimbursement under State Government
scheme and receive donations from external entities and charitable
institutions. He would submit that Respondent acquiesced to Petitioner
- Corporation's demand notice and requested that deduction be made
in the following manner:- (i)Rs.22,054/- to be recovered through
cheque, (ii) Rs.50,000/- at the rate of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to be recovered
5 of 16
1.WP.2879.2022.doc
from salary and (iii) Rs.50,000/- to be recovered from Gratuity. He
would submit that Respondent proposed the above schedule of
payments and did not raise any grievance until superannuation hence
he cannot subsequently state that action of the Petitioner - Corporation
is illegal and demand recovery with interest.
4.4. He would submit that two years after Respondent retired, he
filed Application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 in the Labour Court Pune which was allowed by Order dated
10.07.2019. He would submit that Labour Court Pune failed to
appreciate the fact that Application under Section 33C can only be
filed within a period of 1 year from the date on which the amount
became due and payable to Respondent and erred in observing that
there is no time limit mentioned to file application under Section 33C.
He would submit that operation took place on 21.11.2003 and amount
was paid to Respondent on 18.12.2009.
4.5. He would submit that Labour Court failed to appreciate
Circular No. 9/87 which lays down exceptions to reimbursement of
medical expenses. He would submit that under the aforementioned
circular, in medical bill amounting to Rs.91,233/- only amount of
Rs.44,231/- was incurred on medical expenses admissible under
aforementioned circular. He would submit that once Respondent
already received donation from charitable institutions and individuals,
6 of 16
1.WP.2879.2022.doc
he ought not to be entitled to reimbursement of medical expenditure
as this would amount to double benefit from Petitioner - Corporation
and from public donation. He would therefore urge me to quash the
impugned order dated 10.07.2019 passed by Labour Court, Pune.
5. Mr. Phatak, learned Advocate for Respondent would submit
that impugned order dated 10.07.2019 passed by Labour Court, Pune
is correct, passed with due consideration of facts and law and deserves
to be upheld. He would submit that, Respondent was appointed to
Petitioner - Corporation on 13.06.1973, during the course of his
employment he was transferred to multiple locations and finally retired
at Bhosari, Pune and at the time of his retirement he received salary of
Rs.18,000/- p.m. He would submit that when Respondent's wife was
diagnosed with Chronic Renal Failure, he availed of benefit under said
circulars and admitted his wife to Ruby Hall Clinic which is an
authorized hospital under the said circulars. He would submit that
Respondent donated one of his kidney to his wife and transplant took
place on 21.11.2003.
5.1. He would submit that, prior to surgery Respondent made
application seeking pre - hospitalization financial assistance from
Petitioner - Corporation and he received Rs.1,00,000/-. He would
submit that amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was directly paid to Ruby Hall
Clinic and Respondent did not have funds to support his household
7 of 16
1.WP.2879.2022.doc
and medical expenses. Therefore he issued public appeal dated
20.07.2003 to charitable institutions and Trusts to raise funds for his
wife's surgery and raised a total of Rs.1,76,100/- from such donations
as received over a period of time. He would submit that these
charitable institutions and trusts did not lay down conditions on use of
donated funds hence these funds were not used specifically to meet
medical costs incurred and these funds were used to provide monetary
relief and other incidental expenses incurred post hospitalization
period including medicines, periodic medical tests and examinations as
well as Respondent's own admission in hospital to donate his kidney to
his wife which was admittedly not covered by the said circulars.
5.2. He would submit that, Respondent's wife was discharged on
04.12.2003 however, as she contracted jaundice, urinary tract infection
and septicemia and she was readmitted to Ruby Hall Clinic. He would
submit that Respondent produced two medical bills of
Rs.3,82,274.76/- and Rs.91,233/- respectively issued by Medical
Officer of Ruby Hall Clinic.
5.3. He would submit that medical bills were sent to internal
audit committee for auditing where without notice, intimation or
otherwise authority, Accountant / Cashier of Petitioner - Corporation
deducted amount of Rs.4,543.76/- and sanctioned only Rs.3,77,731/-
only. He would submit that Petitioner - Corporation unfairly and
8 of 16
1.WP.2879.2022.doc
without any basis or grounds further deducted amount of Rs.50,589/-
as there were donations received by Respondent. He would submit that
Petitioner - Corporation also deducted Rs.1,00,000/- as pre -
hospitalization advance payment along with minor deductions, hence
total sanctioned amount Rs.2,29,219.30/- was paid to Respondent vide
cheque dated 18.12.2004 drawn on State Bank of India, Pimpri
Branch. However this amount did not include the second bill amount
Rs.91,233/- and remains pending till date. He would submit that re-
admission of Respondent's wife is part and parcel of expenses incurred
during the first period of hospitalization as the cause for re-admission
was an off-shoot of the kidney transplant surgery and it was
immediately in the aftermath of the transplant.
5.4. He would submit that, in essence, total medical expenses
incurred by Respondent were (i) Rs.3,82,274.76/- towards the first
hospital bill, (ii) Rs.91,233/- towards the second hospital bill and (iii)
Rs.60,000/- incidental charges, hence total expenses incurred by
Respondent and claimed from Petitioner is Rs.5,34,597.30/-. He would
submit that Petitioner - Corporation paid Respondent following
amounts (i) Rs.1,00,000/- being amount advanced pre-hospitalization
of Respondent's wife, (ii) Rs.2,29,219/- being the full and final
reimbursement paid to Respondent. Hence total amount paid by
Petitioner - Corporation to Respondent was Rs.3,29,219/-. He would
submit that Petitioner failed to pay Respondent the following
9 of 16
1.WP.2879.2022.doc
amounts:- (i)Rs.91,233/- towards second medical bill dated
19.01.2004, (ii) Rs.54,145/- Respondent's bill incurred on donation of
kidney and (iii)Rs.58.983.60/- claim rejected / inadmissible.
5.5. He would submit that Respondent was shocked to receive
demand notice dated 23.01.2008 issued by Petitioner - Corporation
demanding him to return Rs.1,22,054/- on the grounds that excess
amount was sanctioned to him and that he took double benefit in the
form of reimbursement from Petitioner - Corporation and receipt of
donations from charitable institutions and individuals. He would
submit that Petitioner - Corporation's General Manager (P&IR) did not
verify details of donations submitted to him by Respondent, issue
notice nor did he seek explanation from Respondent with respect to
donations received and instead unilaterally issued demand notice to
recover amount of Rs.1,22,054/- from retirement benefits of
Respondent. He would submit that Respondent addressed letter dated
06.12.2008 to Petitioner - Corporation stating that such deduction of
amounts is illegal and in violation of the said circulars, however
Petitioner - Corporation did not respond to his letter, hence he was
constrained to file Application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court.
5.6. He would submit that Respondent never consented to
recovery of Rs.1,22,054/- through deduction of his gratuity and and
10 of 16
1.WP.2879.2022.doc
retirement dues and submissions made by Petitioner - Corporation in
this regard are false to its very basis. He would submit that perusal of
said circulars would show that Petitioner - Corporation ought to
reimburse entire medical expenses to respondent as kidney related
disease falls into category of life threatening diseases as enumerated in
the said circulars hence Respondent is entitled to reimbursement of all
medical expenses incurred and that audit conducted by Petitioner -
Corporation was faulty and conducted with a view to shy away from its
responsibilities and obligations. He would urge me to dismiss the
present Petition and uphold Judgment dated 10.07.2019 passed by the
Labour Court, Pune.
6. I have heard Mr. Bhutekar, learned Advocate for Petitioner
and Mr. Phatak, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent
and with their able assistance perused the record of the case.
Submissions made by learned Advocates at the bar have received due
consideration of the Court.
7. Admittedly, Respondent was employed by Petitioner -
Corporation as a Steno - Typist on 13.05.1982 and retired as Higher
Grade Stenographer on 30.11.2008 with a clean and unblemished
record. It is seen that Petitioner - Corporation issued said circulars
setting out list of diseases and medical conditions that would be
reimbursed by Petitioner - Corporation if any employee or their
11 of 16
1.WP.2879.2022.doc
relative has contracted the same. It is seen that the said circulars also
lay down guidelines for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred
on treatment of these diseases, particularly Circular No. 9/87 at
Exhibit 'R5' appended to page No. 70 and Circular No. 26/2000 at
Exhibit 'R5' appended to page No.62 of the Petition.
8. It is seen that Respondent's wife fell ill and was advised
Kidney transplant, a medical procedure which falls within the purview
of Circular No.9/87 hence Respondent admitted to her to Ruby Hall
Clinic, Pune which is an authorised hospital under the said circulars. It
is seen that Respondent made an application to Petitioner -
Corporation to disburse funds for before the surgery took place and
Petitioner - Corporation disbursed Rs.1,00,000/- directly to Ruby Hall
Clinic and on 21.11.2003 transplant surgery was conducted however
soon after Respondent's wife was discharged, certain complications
arose from the transplant and she was re-admitted to Ruby Hall clinic.
It is seen that Respondent submitted medical bills of Rs.3,82,274.76/-
for first hospitalization period i.e. 17.11.2003 to 04.12.2003 and
Rs.91,233/-for second hospitalization period i.e. 06.12.2003 to
19.12.2003.
9. It is seen that Petitioner - Corporation sent the
aforementioned bills for an internal audit which determined that total
amount due and payable to Respondent was Rs.2,29,219.30/- as
12 of 16
1.WP.2879.2022.doc
donations totaling to Rs.50,589/-, Rs.1,000/- paid towards purchase of
medicines and advance payment of Rs.1,00,000/- paid to Ruby Hall
Clinic were deducted hence Rs. Rs.2,29,219.30/- was paid to
Respondent vide cheque dated 18.12.2014.
10. It is seen that Petitioner - Corporation did not sanction full
reimbursement towards medical bill for second period of
hospitalization of Rs.91,233/- and only paid of Rs.44,231/- to
Respondent towards purchase of medicines as the remaining amount
was incurred on expenses which were not covered under the circular.
It is seen from medical certificate dated 26.09.2007 issued by Dr.
Abhay N. Sarade, Consultant Nephrologist at Ruby Hall Clinic that
Respondent's wife was re-admitted to Ruby Hall Clinic between
06.12.2003 to 19.12.2003 due to complications arising out of her
transplant surgery and that all medical treatment given to her during
second stint of hospitalization was infact part and parcel of the
transplant operation as complications were an off-shoot of the
transplant surgery, hence I cannot agree with the submissions of
Bhutekar that amount of Rs.91,233/- could not be reimbursed in full to
Respondent. It is seen that Petitioner - Corporation has placed no
material on record to show that only medical expenses amounting to
Rs.44,231/- out of Rs.91,233/- fall under the purview of the said
circulars and mere submissions to this effect cannot suffice as proof in
view thereof.
13 of 16
1.WP.2879.2022.doc
11. It is seen that Respondent, in order to supplement finance
for his wife's surgery, made public appeal dated 20.07.2003 seeking
donations from charitable institutions and trusts. It is seen that
Respondent received donations from charitable institutions and trusts
and filed list of the same along with amounts received on page No.50
of the Petition and it is seen from that list that Respondent received a
total of Rs.1,22,054/- in donation. It is also seen that Petitioner -
Corporation's internal audit team noted an amount of Rs.2,81,000/-
received by Respondent through donations. However, Respondent
reminded Petitioner - Corporation that he received donations to the
tune of Rs.1,76,054/- only. It is seen that on 23.01.2018, Petitioner -
Corporation issued recovery notice to Respondent demanding recovery
of Rs.1,22,054/- on grounds that Respondent took double benefit of
Petitioner - Corporation's reimbursement as well as donations received
from Charitable institutions. It is also seen that Petitioner -
Corporation deducted an amount of Rs.50,589/- from total bill amount
on ground of donations received. Hence, it is seen that Petitioner -
Corporation made two deductions under the name of donations from
Respondent. However it is important to note that none of the said
circulars prohibit employees of the Corporation who avail of the
benefit and reimbursement under the said circulars from taking /
seeking donations from charitable institutions. Hence there can be no
impediment which can prohibit the Respondent from seeking
14 of 16
1.WP.2879.2022.doc
donations and the question of taking double benefit of reimbursement
and donations does not arise. Hence the same cannot be prohibited
and illegal. Therefore, Respondent ought to have received a full
reimbursement on both his medical bills submitted by him to the
Petitioner - Corporation.
12. It is Petitioner - Corporation's case that Respondent
requested that excess amount of Rs.1,22,054/- be recovered in the
following manner (i)Rs.22,054/- to be recovered through cheque, (ii)
Rs.50,000/- at the rate of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to be recovered from salary
and (iii) Rs.50,000/- to be recovered from Gratuity. It is Respondent's
case that he made no such request and that Petitioner - Corporation
illegally deducted his gratuity and pension to recover the excess
donation amount of Rs.1,22,054/-. It is trite law that gratuity and
pension are sacrosanct and cannot be touched unless it is shown that
employee has shown grave loss to the employer. In the present case,
Petitioner - Corporation has placed no material on record to show that
grave financial loss was suffered at the hands of Respondent, hence
gratuity and pension of Respondent cannot be deducted to recover
money which, at the outset, Petitioner - Corporation is not entitled to
receive. It is also seen that Petitioner - Corporation has placed no
material on record to show whether such correspondence and
acquiescence of Respondent to such deductions which casts serious
doubts on whether such correspondence / request / acquiescence of
15 of 16
1.WP.2879.2022.doc
Respondent to Petitioner - Corporation was even made or took place.
13. In view of the above observations and findings, the findings
returned in the impugned Judgment dated 10.07.2019 passed by the
Labour Court, Pune after hearing both the parties deserve to be
upheld. The said judgment is upheld and confirmed. Petitioner -
Corporation shall comply with the said Order / Award forthwith and in
any event within a period of two weeks from today.
14. Resultantly, Writ Petition fails. Writ Petition is dismissed and
disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.10.13
12:59:27 +0530
16 of 16
