Dismissed

Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. v. B.R. Verma

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Nov 2013LPA/1890/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal challenged an order granting medical reimbursement to a retired engineer for private hospital surgery. The bench found that rates were approved by the Corporation/State Government, imposing no additional financial burden, and thus dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as no case for interference was made out against the Single Judge's order granting medical reimbursement.

Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. Vs B.R… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.1890 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision : November 07, 2013

¶3

Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd .....Appellant versus Er.B.R.Verma (Retd) .....Respondent

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.

¶5

Present : Mr.Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶6

-.-

¶7

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶9

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

¶10

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶11

The learned Single Judge vide order under appeal dated 04.07.2013 has granted medical reimbursement to the respondent-a retired Engineer of the appellant-Corporation at the rates of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (for short, PGIMER) for the expenses incurred on the surgery of his both eyes conducted by Dr.P.C.Sharma Eye Hospital, Arya Chowk, Ambala on 6.3.2012 and 23.3.2012.

¶12

The only objection taken by the appellant-Corporation is that it was not a case of medical emergency to justify treatment in a private hospital and that too when the respondent-retiree travelled from Panchkula to Ambala for such surgery. This aspect has been elaborately dealt with by the learned Single Judge on the strength of a previous decision of this Court concluding that the respondent in the instant case was also operated upon under emergency circumstances.

¶13

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.18 12:25 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶14

[2]

¶15

LPA No.1890 of 2013 (O&M)

¶16

Having regard to the fact that the respondent's claim has been accepted at the rates approved by the Corporation/State Government and no additional financial burden has been put on the Corporation, no case to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge is made out.

¶17

Dismissed.

¶18

Since we have decided the appeal on merits, no separate order is required to be passed on the application for condonation of delay of 56 days in filing the appeal.

¶19

[SURYA KANT]

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

November 07, 2013 [SURINDER GUPTA] Mohinder JUDGE

¶22

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.18 12:25 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. v. B.R. Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. v. B.R. Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathura Parshad etc. Vs State of Haryana

Improvement Trust,Khanna Vs Kulbir Singh

Jagdish and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Pb. Agriculture University Teachers Association Ludhiana Vs Pb. Agriculture University Ludhiana

Satpal Yadav & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Union of India and Anr. Vs Babu Ram and Ors.