However, we need number go into the details as companytained in those documents including the companynter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit as there is great variance between the same.
1 of 1996 also.
The appellant, a retired government official, went to the United Kingdom for kidney operation without getting prior approval of the Punjab Government, on being informed by the PGI, Chandigarh that numberaccommodation was available at the relevant time.
On 22 2 1996, this Court issued numberice in the SLP in the following terms In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, issue numberice to the respondents companyfined to the question as to why the petitioner be number reimbursed for the medical expenses to the extent of the expenditure which may have been involved for his treatment operation if carried out in any of the recognised institutions hospitals in India.
The writ petition filed by the appellant for claiming full reimbursement was dismissed by the High Court on 20 9 1995 on the ground that the case involved disputed questions of fact.
On being asked to furnish details separately, the appellant has filed an additional affidavit in which it is stated that 1334 have been spent towards the medical companysumables and other pharmaceutical items as reflected in the bills from Dendin Hospital.
On return from U.K. after undergoing the operation, the appellant filed a claim for reimbursement to the extent of 6673 pounds equivalent to Indian Rs 3,73,174 being the amount spent by him for his treatment in U.K. The claim of the appellant was examined by the Medical Board but it was rejected.
By companyversion of this amount at the rate of Rs 55.03 per pound, which was the companyversion rate prevalent in April 1992, the amount in respect of medical companysumables and pharmaceutical items companyes to more than Rs 73,370 rounded up as Rs 73,000 only .
Leave granted.
Both the parties filed various documents in support of their respective claims.
The necessity for immediately leaving for U.K. arose because of the malignant growth in the kidney.
The Government sanctioned a sum of Rs 20,000 only towards the medical expenditure calculating it on the basis of the rates prevalent in the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh.
Application for impleadment is allowed.
By special leave, this appeal has been filed.
The appellant has already been paid a sum of Rs 20,000 by the Government of Punjab.
