Medical Reimbursement - Treatment Abroad - Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India - Petitioner's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred during treatment abroad at Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia, from 06.02.2012 to 10.02.2012 - Claim for reimbursement of travel expenses for petitioner and wife also made - Held, travelling allowance does not include airfare for overseas medical treatment under current government policy - No explicit clause in policy dated 25.01.1999 to support airfare for attendant - Petitioner's treatment abroad undertaken without prior approval from State Medical Board - Claim for full reimbursement including travel expenses not supported by instructions or policy - Petition dismissed. [Paras 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13]

Court’s Reasoning - Medical Reimbursement Policy - Definition of travelling allowance limited to travel undertaken within the foreign country, not international travel - Approval from State Medical Board mandatory for reimbursement of medical expenses for treatment abroad - Petitioner failed to obtain prior approval - Instructions dated 25.01.1991 revised and superseded by guidelines dated 13.02.1995 - Reimbursement granted as per Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab rates - No provision for reimbursement of international travel expenses. [Paras 6, 7, 12, 13]

Decision:

The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is not entitled to full reimbursement of medical expenses including travel expenses for himself and his wife for treatment undertaken abroad without prior approval from the State Medical Board. The reimbursement already granted is upheld, and no further interference in the impugned order is warranted.

Motor Vehicles Act - Survival of Claim - Sections 110-A, 166 - Indian Succession Act - Section 306 - Death of injured claimant during appeal - Claim for personal injuries abates if death not due to injuries - Legal representatives can prosecute claim for loss of estate - Legal representatives entitled to prosecute for enhancement of compensation related to loss of estate but not for personal injuries. [Para 24]

Compensation for Personal Injuries and Loss of Estate - Claims abate with death if unrelated to injuries - Legal representatives can claim for loss of estate - Compensation related to medical expenses, loss of earnings during treatment, and other pecuniary losses included in estate - Non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and future income not prosecutable by legal representatives unless death is injury-related. [Paras 24, 27, 33]

Court's Reasoning - Modified Action Personal Law - Section 306 of Succession Act permits survival of most claims to legal representatives except for personal injuries not causing death - Compensation merges into estate if awarded during claimant’s life - Legal representatives can defend and claim awarded compensation forming part of estate. [Paras 24, 25, 31]

Decision:

The appeal is partly allowed. The legal representatives are entitled to payment of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and additional amounts under heads of transportation, special diet, and attendant charges, loss of earnings during medical treatment, and loss of earnings due to permanent disability till the claimant's death. Total enhanced compensation of ₹73,180/- is awarded with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization.

Constitutional Law - Doctrine of Bias - Articles 226 and 227 - Central Excise Tariff Act - Request for Transfer of Appeal - Petitioner alleged bias as the Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana, was the wife of the Commissioner who reviewed the order being appealed - Doctrine of bias emphasized justice must be seen to be done - Reasonable apprehension of bias suffices to invoke the doctrine - Writ petition allowed, appeal transferred to another Commissioner (Appeals). [Paras 11, 12, 13]

Legal Principle - Broad Principles of Bias - Bias depends on facts and circumstances - Must not be based on figment of imagination - Justice must be both done and seen to be done - Courts must deliberate logically on bias claims - Actual bias not necessary, reasonable apprehension is sufficient. [Para 11]

Court's Reasoning - Factual Matrix and Doctrine of Bias - Petitioner's appeal involved an order reviewed by the Commissioner (husband) and heard by Commissioner (Appeals) (wife) - Such circumstances create reasonable apprehension of bias - Petitioner’s apprehension of unfairness legitimate and grounded in the doctrine of bias - Transfer justified to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. [Paras 12, 13]

Decision: The writ petition is allowed. The communication dated 05.11.2018 by the Chief Commissioner, CGST, Chandigarh, refusing to transfer the appeal from Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana, is set aside. The appeal is transferred to Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar, for fresh adjudication. All pending applications are also disposed of.

Pension Law - Retirement Age - Article 226 of Constitution - Extension of Service Post-Superannuation - Petitioner retired as Senior Lab Assistant at age 58, extended service till 11.06.2013 - Pension should be based on pay drawn till 11.06.2013 - Held, pension to be fixed as per pay drawn on date of original retirement, i.e., 31.03.2011, as per applicable rules - Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 4, 9, 12, 13]

Promotion and Pension - Retrospective Promotion - Entitlement to Arrears - Retrospective promotion granted but arrears denied per court's previous order - Petitioner not entitled to arrears for the period before promotion as it was against the order in CWP No.10410 of 2010 - Promotion benefits without arrears upheld. [Paras 10, 14]

Court's Reasoning - Rule Application - Retirement age for Class III employee is 58 years, and for Class IV is 60 years - Petitioner promoted to Class III post, thus retirement age is 58 years - Pension fixed based on pay drawn at retirement date, 31.03.2011 - Continuation till 11.06.2013 irrelevant for pension calculation - Extension of service does not alter retirement date for pension purposes. [Paras 12, 13, 15]

Decision:

The writ petition is dismissed. The pensionary benefits of the petitioner were correctly calculated based on the pay drawn on 31.03.2011, the date of his original retirement at age 58. The petitioner is not entitled to arrears of pay due to retrospective promotion, as per the court's order dated 28.05.2010.

Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Cooperative Societies - Sections 54, 55, 56 of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act - Cooperative Banks not considered 'State' under Article 12 - Writ petition against a Cooperative Bank not maintainable - Cooperative Societies not administered or controlled by State Machinery - No writ jurisdiction over Cooperative Societies - Petition seeking release of pensionary benefits from Cooperative Bank dismissed. [Paras 10, 14]

Jurisdiction of Writ Court - Definition of 'State' - Cooperative Societies not amenable to writ jurisdiction unless controlled by the State - Cooperative Bank without government share capital or financial assistance from State not subject to writ jurisdiction - No deep and persuasive control by the State over the Bank - Petition dismissed on grounds of maintainability. [Paras 10, 14, 15]

Court's Reasoning - Judicial Precedents - Cooperative Societies not considered 'State' unless fulfilling specific criteria - Control by government, share capital, financial assistance, and monopoly status as determining factors - Petitioner failed to show government control or financial assistance to Cooperative Bank - Previous judgments consistently held Cooperative Societies outside writ jurisdiction unless criteria met. [Paras 10, 14]

Decision:

The writ petition is dismissed as not being maintainable. The petitioner is directed to avail alternate remedies available under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The court acknowledges the petitioner's right to address any objections by authorities regarding the delay due to the pending writ petition.

Specific Relief Act - Declaration of Ownership - Section 34 - Suit for declaration claiming ownership and possession of suit land - Registered sale deed typically cannot be set aside for non-payment of consideration unless the sale deed includes a specific clause allowing such cancellation - Rule of lis pendens does not apply if the previous litigation was collusive - First Appellate Court’s findings reversed - Regular Second Appeal allowed. [Paras 12, 16, 19]

Transfer of Property Act - Lis Pendens - Section 52 - All transfers of property subject to a pending suit are subservient to the result of the suit - Exception for collusive suits - Collusion apparent from lack of contest and cross-examination in previous suit - First Appellate Court's application of lis pendens rule found erroneous - Collusion established, making the rule of lis pendens inapplicable. [Paras 16, 17]

Court's Reasoning - Registered Sale Deed and Payment of Consideration - Section 55(4)(b) and Section 8 of Transfer of Property Act - A registered sale deed should not be set aside on the ground of non-payment of consideration unless such a condition is explicitly included - Sale consideration acknowledged in the sale deed is typically deemed valid - The appellate court’s reversal based on non-proof of consideration is deemed perverse. [Paras 12, 14]

Decision: The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are set aside, and the judgment of the trial court is restored. The questions of law framed are answered in favor of the appellant. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

Registration of Compromise Decree - Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 - Compromise decree relating to immovable property subject to previous litigation - Not required to be registered - First Appellate Court's decision erroneous - Compromise decree not required to be registered unless it involves property not subject matter of the suit - Regular Second Appeal allowed. [Paras 3, 10]

Legal Principle - Exemption from Registration - Section 17(2)(vi) - Decrees and orders of a court are exempt from registration unless they involve immovable property not subject to the original litigation - Appellants were parties to the litigation - Compromise decree correctly determined ownership of the suit property without need for registration. [Paras 9, 10]

Court's Reasoning - Correctness of Compromise Decree - Compromise decree dated 06.02.1992 disposed of two civil suits between the parties - Decree did not fall in the category requiring registration under Section 17(2)(vi) - Appellants' ownership based on the decree was valid without registration - First Appellate Court's finding reversed. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10]

Decision:

The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are set aside. The compromise decree dated 06.02.1992 does not require registration, and the appellants' ownership based on this decree is affirmed. All pending miscellaneous applications are disposed of accordingly.

Service Law - Suspension Period Benefits - Rule 7.3(2) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970 - Employee acquitted of criminal charges to be treated as innocent and entitled to all benefits during suspension - Petitioner suspended due to criminal proceedings, remained suspended for seven years, and acquitted at trial - Entitled to full salary and consequential benefits for suspension period - Order treating part of suspension as leave without pay set aside - Suspension period treated as duty. [Paras 10, 13, 17]

Pension and Retirement Benefits - Delay in Payment - Articles 226 and 227 - Interest on Delayed Payment - Retirement benefits paid with significant delay without justification - Entitled to interest on delayed payments - Petitioner received benefits ranging from six months to one and half years late - Interest at 9% per annum awarded on delayed payments. [Paras 19, 20, 22]

Court's Reasoning - Legal Precedents - Precedents support treating acquitted employees' suspension periods as duty and awarding full benefits - Unjustified delay in pensionary benefits payment entitles petitioner to interest - Respondents' delay in payment caused undue hardship - Reference to similar cases where benefits were granted post-acquittal and interest awarded on delayed payments. [Paras 13, 16, 20, 21]

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.07.2013 is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to treat the entire suspension period from 17.06.2003 to 03.05.2010 as duty, with all consequential benefits. The petitioner is also awarded interest at 9% per annum on the delayed payment of retirement benefits from the date they became due till their release.

Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Section 20, Order 37, Rule 1 of CPC - Amending Act of 1976 - Suit filed at Bathinda based on dishonored cheque - Defendants filed for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction, arguing summary suits should be tried only in District Courts of Amritsar per Rule 81 - Court at Bathinda has jurisdiction as cheque was dishonored there - Rule 81 inconsistent with amended Order 37, Rule 1 - Inconsistent provisions repealed by Section 97(1) of Amending Act of 1976 - Revision petition dismissed. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 13, 16]

Procedural Law - Summary Suit Jurisdiction - Amending Act Effect - High Court's earlier amendments inconsistent with the CPC amendments brought by Amending Act of 1976 are repealed - Rule 81 restricted jurisdiction to certain courts, while amended Order 37 expanded it - Section 97(1) ensures uniform procedural law across jurisdictions post-amendment. [Paras 10, 11, 13, 17]

Court's Reasoning - Legal Precedents - Decisions in Ganpat Giri v. Second Additional District Judge, Ballia and Pankajakshi (dead) through LRs v. Chandrika clarify repealing effect of Section 97(1) on inconsistent provisions - Principle of maintaining uniformity in procedural law upheld - Bathinda court’s jurisdiction affirmed based on cause of action arising there. [Paras 14, 15]

Decision:

The revision petition is dismissed. The order dated 16.10.2019, rejecting the application for dismissal of the summary suit on the grounds of jurisdiction, is upheld. Rule 81, Chapter 21, Volume I of High Court Rules and Orders is inconsistent with the provisions of the CPC as amended by the Amending Act of 1976 and stands repealed.