Sh. Ashok Kumar Chadha vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 89 Del

*         HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

+                      W.P.(C) No.1613/2007

%                      Judgment decided on : 07.01.2011

SH. ASHOK KUMAR CHADHA                       ......Petitioner
                 Through: Mr Neeraj Grover, Advocate.

                       Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                        .....Respondents
                  Through: Mr Ravinder Aggarwal with Mr Nitish
                           Gupta, Advocate.

Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                     No.

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                  Yes.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported
   in the Digest?                                      Yes.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The present Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India praying to the Court to issue a writ of

mandamus for the following reliefs:

(i) Directing the respondents to create a supernumerary

post for the petitioner under the provisions of Section 47 (1)

(proviso) of The Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities,

Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act 1995.

(ii) Directing the respondents to reimburse all medical

claims of the petitioner for the amount spent from time to time for

the treatment in the Hospital, reimbursement of total expenses

borne by the petitioner on airlifting as a stretcher patient (allowed

and paid partially while the petitioner was entitled to full

reimbursement) and for the expenses incurred on the nursing care

administered to the petitioner after being discharged from the

Hospital.

(iii) Directing the respondents to reimburse the sum of Rs.

16,760/- incurred on the treatment of petitioner‟s son for dengue

in a CGHS recognized Hospital.

(iv) Directing the respondents to restore the quantum of

accumulated leave as was claimed to have been utilized pursuant

to the accident of the petitioner on 04.06.2005.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was working

at the CPWD (Central Public Works Department) since 1974. On

04.06.2005 the petitioner who was posted as an Assistant

Engineer, Guwahati, Central Sub Division II, CPWD, Guwahati

suffered a serious road accident while returning from the office

and was admitted in Hospital in an emergency condition.

3. He suffered serious head injuries with left nasal and ear

bleeding and was put on ventilator support. On 21.06.2005 the

condition of the petitioner did not improve and his brain fluids

were constantly increasing to a dangerous level therefore he was

advised to be taken to New Delhi for further treatment in an

excellent Neurological set up with best medical equipments so, he

was airlifted from Guwahati to New Delhi on the next day as a

stretcher patient with his son and one accompanying doctor

deputed by the emergency department Down Town Hospital,

Guwahati for transit care of the petitioner with continuous oxygen

support in the flight.

4. On reaching Delhi, he was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram

Hospital (for short SGRH) in the Neurology Intensive Care Unit.

5. The petitioner‟s family on 25.08.2005 requested the

SGRH, New Delhi, to permit the petitioner to be shifted to some

other CGHS approved Hospital for neurosurgery.

6. The petitioner in a Persistent Vegetative State was

discharged from SGRH on 09.09.2005 and was taken to his

residence where on the advice of the treating doctors of SRGH he

was administered with round the clock excellent domiciliary

nursing care, physiotherapy and rehabilitation diet for which the

arrangements were made by the family of the petitioner.

7. The petitioner was admitted at Maharaja Agrasen

Hospital from 16.09.2005 to 04.10.05 as his condition had

deteriorated and after being discharged was again advised to be

administered with round the clock domiciliary nursing care,

physiotherapy and rehabilitation.

8. While the condition of the petitioner still did not

improve, his son was diagnosed to be suffering from Dengue

Haemorrhagic Fever and was admitted at Maharaja Agrasen

Hospital for his treatment from 31.10.2005 to 04.11.2005.

9. The petitioner‟s wife on 05.12.2005 issued a letter to the

Executive Engineer, GCD, CPWD, Guwahati requesting to process

the petitioner‟s pending medical claims. The Executive Engineer,

GCD, CPWD, Guwahati wrote a letter to the Superintending

Engineer, Assam Central Circle, Guwahati on 22.12.2005 to explain

him the pressing circumstances of the petitioner and to seek his

opinion in respect of the claim for reimbursement of the

petitioner‟s son‟s medical expenses.

10. The petitioner‟s wife, on 05.03.2006 wrote another letter

for the settlement of the petitioner‟s medical claims. The Executive

Engineer, GCD, CPWD, Guwahati, under the advice of DGHS wrote

a letter to the Director General Health Services Ministry of Health

and Family Welfare on 04.04.2006 to seek settlement of the claim

for Petitioner‟s Son‟s medical claim as the same had been received

back from Chief Engineer, Shillong on 13.03.2006.

11. On 25.06.2006 the petitioner‟s wife wrote a letter to the

Chief Engineer, NEZ, Shillong with a copy to the Executive

Engineer, GCD, CPWD, Guwahati, to seek to facilitate the medical

claims and to know the exact status of the same and to enquire

whether any further documents of formalities were required. On

29.06.2006 she again wrote to Chief Engineer, NEZ Shillong for the

permission of MRI and other diagnostic tests of the petitioner.

12. She got a letter from the office of Chief Engineer, NEZ

Shillong asking for original tickets in respect of claim no.2 and this

letter was replied with observations that the original tickets had

already been deposited with the Executive Engineer, GCD, CPWD,

Guwahati. And on 27.07.2006 Office of Chief Engineer, NEZ

Shillong sent a letter to the Executive Engineer, GCD, CPWD,

Guwahati to delegate the reimbursement of claim no.4 to the

Superintending Engineer, Assam Central Circle 1, and enclosed the

claim along with the letter.

13. The Director General of Works, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan

vide office order No. 172/05 dated 03.08.2006 transferred the

petitioner from Guwahati Central Division to the Northern Region

for further posting.

14. The petitioner‟s wife vide letter dated 28.08.2006 once

again issued a reminder to the Executive Engineer, GCD, CPWD,

Guwahati to expedite the reimbursement of petitioner‟s medical

claims. The Executive Engineer, GCD, Guwahati, on 12.09.2006

sent a demand draft of Rs.8.65,572/- in favour of the petitioner for

the reimbursement of expenses incurred towards his treatment at

Sir Ganga Ram Hospital for the period 22.06.2005 to 09.09.2005.

15. On 08.11.2006 the petitioner‟s wife approached the

Addl. Director General (NR) CPWD, New Delhi and there, as per the

petitioner, she was asked to give a request in writing that the

petitioner would opt for Voluntary Retirement once the posting is

decided.

16. Vide office order No. 313 dated 12.09.2006 the

petitioner‟s family was informed that the petitioner was posted

with the office of CPWD at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi.

17. It is stated in the petition that on 20.11.2006 the

petitioner‟s wife approached the S.E. CPWD, Vigyan Bhawan to

submit the joining report of the petitioner but the report was not

acknowledged as she refused to write another undertaking that

the petitioner would take Voluntary Retirement immediately after

joining.

18. Vide office order dated 27.12.2006 the petitioner was

though taken on rolls as A.E., CPWD, Vigyan Bhawan, but his

joining was deferred till the time he appears in person with a

fitness certificate.

19. The petitioner‟s wife being aggrieved by the said order,

filed the present writ petition as the salary of the petitioner had

been discontinued from October 2006.

20. The petition was first time listed on 02.03.2007 when

the notice was issued to the respondents. But unfortunately on the

same day, the petitioner passed away. The legal heirs of the

petitioner were brought on record vide order dated 20.04.2007.

21. The petitioner had made the following claims in the

present petition:

(i) Claim towards complete medical reimbursement. The details of the claims raised by the petitioner for the reimbursement of the expenses incurred towards his medical treatment when alive are as under:

S. Name of Period of Amount Amount Difference No. Hospital treatment claimed received of amount

1. Down 4/6/05 to Rs.1,53,878/- Rs.1,00,146/- Rs.53,732/-

             Town        14/6/05
             Hospital,
             Guwahati
2.           Down        15/6/05 to Rs.1,02,115/-     Rs.75,096/-     Rs.27,019/-
             Town        22/6/05
             Hospital,
             Guwahati
3.           Sir Ganga   22/6/05 to Rs.11,50,840/-    Rs.8,60,572/-   Rs.2,90,268/-
             Ram         9/9/05
             Hospital,
             N. Delhi
4.           Maharaja    9/9/05 to Rs.1,91,252/-      Rs.1,77,167/-   Rs.14,085/-
             Agrasen     4/10/05
             Hospital,
             N. Delhi.
                                      Rs.15,98085     Rs.12,12,981    Rs.3,85,104


      (ii)       His salary/backwages for the period of 05.06.2005 to

02.03.2007 i.e. for 21 months as he was entitled to be kept on a supernumerary post in terms of the provisions of Section 47 (1) of The Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act 1995.

(iii) Claim for expenses incurred on the nursing attendant/domiciliary care, physiotherapy, consumables, diet etc. at the rate of Rs.25000/- month which includes Rs. 18000/- per month for round the clock nursing care, Rs. 3500/- towards the physiotherapist and Rs. 3500/- per month towards the consumables.

(iv) Claim towards reimbursement of Rs.16,760/- with interest incurred on the treatment of the petitioner‟s son.

(v) Claim of Rs.71,716/- towards airlifting charges of the petitioner from Gawahati to Delhi.

22. The main contention of the respondents is that each of

the claims raised by the petitioner has to be decided on the

touchstone of the existing policy. It is only if the claims raised are

in consonance with the extant policy then the same is to be

allowed. According to the counsel there is a ceiling limit on

reimbursement of various medical expenses and financial

resources of Government of India are limited.

23. In response to the petitioner‟s claims the respondents

have submitted that the medical claims have been settled as per

CGHS Package/Rates applicable to its beneficiaries. In regard to

the second claim of the petitioner for creation of supernumerary

post under provision of Section 47 (1) of The Persons with Disability

(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act 1995

the respondents have submitted that as per the records available,

no such request was made by the petitioner to the Department

and the relief was sought only through the present petition.

Further it has been submitted that neither the services of the

petitioner were dispensed with nor his rank was reduced at any

stage, thus the petitioner was not entitled for the benefits of

disability as per The Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities,

Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act 1995 as the disability was

not acquired in the due performance of the official duties.

24. In response to the third claim of the petitioner for

reimbursement for the nursing care taken at home the

respondents have stated that no such claim was submitted by the

petitioner to the Department.

25. Regarding the fourth claim for the reimbursement of

Rs.16,760/- spent on the treatment of the petitioner‟s son it has

been submitted by the respondents that in this regard the required

documents called for vide CE (NEZ) letter No.3/7/2005-Admn.

dated 09.11.2005 and EE, Guwahati Central Division‟ letter

No.2(30/GCD/2005/4068 dated 16.12.2005 have not been

supplied. The last and the fifth claim regarding the reimbursement

of air lifting charges the respondents have submitted that an

amount of Rs. 59,837/- vide cheque No.997819 dated 18.11.2008

has been paid to the wife of the petitioner for the same.

26. As regards the petitioner‟s claim for full reimbursement

of expenses incurred on airlifting the petitioner, it is submitted by

the learned counsel for the respondents that the reimbursement of

the travelling expenses of one attendant is permitted and since

the petitioner was accompanied by two attendants the expense of

second attendant could not be reimbursed.

27. Similarly, it was also submitted that the reimbursement

of the expense incurred towards the treatment of petitioner‟s son

the same had to be processed as per rules on submitting the

requisite document.

28. It is stated by the respondents that the petitioner has

claimed a total sum of Rs. 16,69,801/-, and against the said

amount the petitioner has already been reimbursed a sum of Rs.

13,88,940/- which is the maximum amount that can be reimbursed

as per the prevalent CGHS/AIIMS. The detail of the said amount

reimbursed is already given as annexure „A‟ in the additional

affidavit filed on 25th August, 2009.

29. The issue of imposition of ceiling limit of reimbursement

of medical expenses came before the Apex Court in the case of

State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998) (4)

SCC 117 and the validity of the policy was upheld by the Supreme

Court as mentioned in para 23 and 27 of the judgment.

30. In response to the judgment referred by the petitioner in

the case of Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 1388

and State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh Chawla, AIR 1997 SC

1225 the learned counsel for the respondents has explained that

both the cases have been distinguished by the Apex Court in the

case of Ram Lubhaya's (supra).

31. Before further discussion in the matter there are certain

admitted facts in the matter. The detail of the same are given as

under:

a. The petitioner (since deceased on 02.03.2007; the date

of issuance of notice of the present petition) was a

government employee and a beneficiary of Central

Government Health Scheme.

b. The petitioner while being posted at CPWD, Guwahati,

Assam suffered a serious road accident on 04.06.2005 and

lost his consciousness immediately due to internal head

injury.

c. He was admitted at Down Town Hospital, Guwahati by

passersby and immediately put on ventilator support.

During his stay at the Down Town Hospital, two major brain

surgeries were performed by the Doctors for removal of

blood clots but the petitioner did not regain consciousness.

d. After about two weeks, the petitioner was advised to be

shifted to an ICU set up in Delhi and thus was airlifted to

Delhi on 22.06.2005 on an Indian Airlines flight and admitted

in ICU setup at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi.

e. The petitioner had gone into a Persistent Vegetative

State and was treated as SGRH, New Delhi till about

09.09.2005 whereafter he was shifted to his residence still

continuing in persistent vegetative state wherein he was not

at all able to use his mental faculties, was not able to

recognize anybody, nor was able to sit, walk or speak but

was bed ridden even to the extent that he was being fed

through a tube in the stomach, was passing urine through

catheter but was continuing to breathe normally and

undergoing normal sleep wake cycles.

32. It is not in dispute that when the present writ petition

was filed the petitioner was alive and also sought the various

reliefs inter alia

(i) Creation of a supernumerary post under the provisions

of Section 47 of the Person with Disabilities (equal

opportunities, protection of rights and full participation

Act, 1995.

(ii) Seeking full reimbursement of the medical claims filed

by the petitioner from time to time against the amount

spent for treatment in Hospitals.

(iii) Seeking a reimbursement of the Air-Travel expenses

for airlifting the petitioner as a stretcher patient from

Guwahati to New Delhi.

(iv) Seeking reimbursement of the expenses for nursing

care administered to the petitioner after being

discharged from the Hospital.

(v) For seeking reimbursement of the sum incurred on the

treatment of the petitioner‟s son for dengue in CGHS

recognized Hospital.

(vi) For seeking restoration of the quantum of accumulated

leave as was claimed to have been utilized for grant of

leave to the petitioner pursuant to the accident.

However due to fatal condition the petitioner succumbed to

his injuries on 02.03.2007 i.e. when the present petition was listed

before the Court. During the pendency of the writ petition the

claim of the petitioner seeking reimbursement of the air travel

expenses to the tune of Rs. 71,716/- has been partially allowed

and payment of Rs. 59,879/- has been received.

33. Mr. Neeraj Grover, counsel for the petitioner has argued

that the petitioner was entitled for full reimbursement of the

expenses incurred against the claims of hospitalization, for period

of 04.06.2005 till 04.10.2005 which have been allowed partially. It

is the admitted case of the parties that an amount of Rs.

13,88,940/- stands paid to the petitioner till date against the total

claims of Rs. 16,69,801/-. It is also an admitted position that the

difference of Rs. 2,80,861/- has not been paid to the petitioner as

the reimbursement has been allowed only as per the rates

prevailing at AIIMS New Delhi while the treatment was taken at Sir

Ganga Ram Hospital in Emergency and thereafter at Maharaja

Agrasen Hospital for which permission was granted to the

petitioner. The fact of the details of payments is reflected in

affidavit dated 26.08.2009 filed on behalf of the respondents.

34. It is argued that the petitioner was entitled to full

reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred inasmuch as the

treatment was taken at private Hospital in absolute state of

emergency which is not disputed by the respondents and is in fact

duly mentioned in letter dated 14.06.2007 and also in letters dated

04.04.2006 and 22.12.2006.

35. Further the severity of the situation is duly reflected

from the photographs of the petitioner duly placed on the record.

Therefore, the case of the petitioner is duly covered under various

pronouncements of the Supreme Court and also of this Hon‟ble

Court on this aspect wherein it has been held that a government

servant who seeks medical treatment in a private hospital in

emergency and under compelling circumstances, is entitled to full

reimbursement of the expenses incurred and should not be

burdened with the difference of charges between those charged by

AIIMS Delhi and private institutes.

36. After having examined the relevant documents on

record regarding the condition of the petitioner after the accident,

it is evident that the treatment taken at the private hospitals was

in extremely emergent situation and the same was not planned.

37. The case of the petitioner is further fortified with some

the relevant judgments which are as under:

(i) Surjit Singh (supra), AIR 1996 SC 1388; wherein it was

held:

"Government cannot insist on an employee to get himself treated at recognized government institution and claim rates prevailing there. The Hon‟ble Court further observed:

"Self preservation of one‟s life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, scared, precious and inviolable........(para 10)

The appellant did not have to stand in long queue before the medical board, the manning and assembling of which bare-facedly, makes meetings difficult to happen. That applicant also did not have to stand in queues of Government hospital at AIIMS and could go elsewhere to an alternate hospital as per policy."

(ii) Mohinder Singh Chawla (supra), wherein it was held:

"Right to health is an integral part of right to life. Government has constitutional obligation to provide health facilities. If the government servant has suffered an ailment which requires treatment at a

specialized approved hospital and on reference whereat the Government servant had undergone the treatment therein, it is but the duty of the State to bear the expenditure incurred by the government servant. Expenditure thus incurred requires to be reimbursed by the state to the employee. Having the constitutional obligation to bear the expenses for the government servant while in service or after retirement from service, as per the policy of the Government, the government is required to fulfill its constitutional obligations. Necessarily, the state has to bear the expenses incurred in that behalf. The Hon‟ble Apex Court observed as under:

"Take for instance, a case where an inpatient facility is not available in a specialized hospital and the patient has to stay in a hotel while undergoing the treatment, during the required period, as certified by the doctor, the expenses incurred would be integral part of expenditure incurred towards treatment." (para 4)

"It is incongruous that while the patient as admitted to undergo treatment and he is refused the reimbursement of the actual expenditure incurred towards the room rent and is given the expenditure of the room rent chargeable in another institute whereat he had not actually undergone treatment." (para 11)

(iii) Narendera Pal Singh Vs. UOI (DHC) 79 (1999) DLT

358 wherein it was held:

"Right to health is an integral part of right to life. In case of emergency treatment, it is the duty of Govt. to grant ex-post facto sanctions and not deny the claim of petitioner on technical and flimsy grounds.

The aforesaid judgments have been consistently followed by this Hon‟ble Court in a catena of cases which may briefly be listed as follows:

(a) M. G. Mahindru vs. UOI 92(2001)DLT 59 - Benefit of full medical reimbursement cannot be denied to government servant.

(b) V. K. Gupta vs. UOI 97 (2002) DLT 337 - Petitioner who was referred to Escorts Hospital found entitled to full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for treatment.

(c) Kamlesh Sharma vs. MCD 2003 (66) DRJ 237 - In cases of emergency, the attendants or patient is certainly not expected to wait for a reasonable time

as per usual procedure.

(d) Prithvi Nath Chopra vs. UOI 111(2004) DLT 190 -

Due to non-availability of doctor at Referred hospital, the petitioner took his wife in emergency to private hospital. Petitioner cannot be deprived of full reimbursement of the charges charged by the said hospital. Petitioner entitled to be reimbursed the amount as billed by Apollo Hospital.

(e) Sq. Comm. Randeep Kumar Rana vs. UOI 111 (2004) DLT 473 - Treatment taken at Escorts hospital pursuant to recommendation made by Govt. Hospital. Once respondent themselves recommend the petitioner‟s son for treatment at Escorts Hospital, they cannot deny full reimbursement. They cannot deny their liability to pay to Government employee who is entitled to medical reimbursement.

(f) Milap Singh vs. UOI 113 (2004) DLT 91 - CGHS Scheme; Petitioner suffered heart attack during morning walk. Admitted to Escorts Hospital. Held entitled to full reimbursement of expenses incurred on treatment.

(g) J.K. Saxena vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 117 (2005) DLT 451 -Petitioner found entitled to full reimbursement of medical expenses.

38. After considering the cases referred by the petitioner

including the case of Ram Lubhaya Bagga (supra) I am of the

view that the petitioner was also entitled to full reimbursement of

expenses incurred at Maharaja Agrasen Hospital as none of the

hospitals i.e. AIIMS, RML were stated to be agreeable to give a

room to the petitioner keeping in view his helpless condition. Thus

in equity and fairness, the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement

of the aforesaid expenses, as a special case, without creating any

precedent as the present case covers the four corners of the

exceptional case of Ram Lubhaya Bagga (supra).

The following observations were made by the Supreme

Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Chawla (supra) wherein the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed:

"Take for instance, a case where an inpatient facility is not available in a specialized hospital and the patient has to stay in a hotel while undergoing the treatment, during the required period, as certified by the doctor, the expenses incurred would be integral part of expenditure incurred towards treatment."

39. As regard the reimbursement of a sum of Rs. 16,760/-

spent on the treatment of the petitioner‟s son for dengue in a

CGHS recognized hospital is concerned, admittedly his young son

aged around 21 years was inflicted with acute and fatal disease

dengue heomorrhagic fever in October, 2005. He was initially

treated by CGHS dispensary doctors but had to be rushed to

Maharaja Agrasen Hospital (duly recognized under CGHS) as his

platelet count had fallen drastically to 19,000 against normal

platelet count of 1,50,000. Such drastic fall in platelet count had

proved fatal in many cases of Dengue in Delhi, further the request

for grant of post facto permission for taking treatment at Maharaja

Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi was duly faxed to the

HOD of the Petitioner on the same day when his son was admitted

to the hospital. The medical claim for the amount spent on the

treatment for Rs. 16,760/- was also submitted on 25.11.2005.

Thus, the claim raised in this regard cannot be treated as non-

emergency situation to raise any doubt in the presence of

evidence produced. The petitioner was also entitled for the

difference towards the airlifting charges due to the fatal condition.

It is admitted position that the petitioner was accompanied by two

attendants, the details of the same have been furnished by him.

40. Regarding the reimbursement of the expenses for

nursing care, physiotherapy, medicines etc. administered to the

petitioner after being discharged from the hospital @ Rs.25,000/-

p.m. for 17 months. It has been submitted by the petitioner‟s

family that they were not able to file a claim for reimbursement of

the said amount as under the relevant forms, a claim has to be

accompanied by an essentiality certificate from the concerned

Hospital which none of the doctors of RML Hospital or even CGHC

dispensary were issuing. In fact later on doctors of RML Hospital

before whom the petitioner was regularly taken for check up also

denied issuing him any further medical certificates and even

prescribe the medicines to the petitioner on a prescription, in the

absence of which even the medicines were not provided by the

CGHS Dispensary. This Court is of the view that due to peculiar

treatment and care required by the petitioner being in persistent

vegetative state, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be allowed

as the written advice of the Doctor C.S. Agrawal, Sr. Consultant

Neurologist at SGRH, New Delhi alongwith the copies of few bills of

nurses and other miscellaneous expenses. The petitioner has also

placed on record the copies of letters dated 25.06.2006,

03.07.2006 and 03.01.2007 written by his wife to the Executive

Engineer, GCD, CPWD informing and updating him about the

condition of the petitioner and expenses being incurred on nursing

care, physiotherapy, consumables, diet etc. @ of Rs.25,000/- per

month.

41. This Court is also not agreeable with the submission of

the respondents that due to the demise of the petitioner during

the pendency of the petition the relief as claimed for the creation

of the supernumerary post becomes infructuous. Rather this court

feels that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the

provisions of Section 47 (1) of the Act from the date of his accident

i.e. 04.06.2005 till the date when he passed away. Thus, he is

entitled to the salary for the period of 21 months which was not

paid to the petitioner and in turn the accumulated account of the

petitioner in form of Earned Leave and Half Pay Leave was

exhausted.

Disabilities Act is a beneficial and benevolent legislation

and thus the provisions of the act are liable to be construed

liberally and even if two views are possible, the positive view may

be preferred as that is the object of the Act.

This High Court in a matter titled as Dilbagh Singh Vs.

DTC 123 (2005) DLT 318 held that the definition of „Disability‟ in

the Act qua Section 47 is expansive. Yet in another case titled as

Krishan Chander Vs. DTC 2003 (71) DRJ 11 this Court held that

the benefit of Section 47 was maintainable retrospectively even

after retirement. The victim was found entitled to half back wages.

42. In support of the submission as referred above, the

learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner in his

credit had earned leave of 292 days and Half Pay Leave of 166

days which were exhausted in the process of taking leave from the

respondent from 06.06.2005 till 30.09.2006. The petitioner was in

any case entitled to the benefit of his accumulated leave account

as his terminal benefits could not be availed by him as the

respondents claimed to have utilized the same.

43. For the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is

allowed and this court is of the considered opinion that the legal

heirs of the petitioner (deceased) are entitled for the following

reliefs:

a) The difference of Rs. 2,80,861/- towards the medical

reimbursement.

b) Reimbursement of Rs. 16,760/- on the treatment of

petitioner‟s son.

c) The difference towards airlifting charges of the

petitioner from Guwahati to Delhi.

d) Expenses incurred on the nursing attendant/domiciliary

case as claimed.

e) Half back wages for the period form 05.06.2005 to

02.03.2007 as he was entitled to be kept in a

supernumerary post in terms of the provisions of

Section 47 (1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act,

1995.

44. The abovesaid amount be paid within two months from

today. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid

directions.

45. No costs.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

JANUARY 07, 2011 dp/jk