Q:I am a Damodar Valley Corporation employee. I underwent a bypass surgery at B.M. Birla in December 2004. I had to pay Rs 1.75 lakh for the operation after making PF withdrawals. I lodged my claim with the department for reimbursement. But it reduced my claim by Rs 65,000. This was in contravention of the DVC?s own office memorandum dated 5 November 2004. In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court has ordered full reimbursement of heart surgery costs to a government employee. Am I entitled to full reimbursement?
S.C. Bhattacharjee, Dhanbad
A:It appears from the memorandum enclosed that you are entitled to full reimbursement on actuals for treatment of ischemic heart disease including acute myo-cardial infarction and heart block. As such, there appears to be no justification for the department to reduce your claim. I am unable to make any comment on the high court decision you have mentioned without looking into it. However, it may not be necessary for you to rely on any judgement as the memorandum appears to be quite clear. Your easiest remedy in my opinion would be to file a writ petition against DVC, praying for a writ of mandamus, directing DVC to act in accordance with its office memorandum, dated 5 November 2004.
Q:I was an employee of a big industrial company. In May 2004, my services were terminated citing misconduct. I made a representation to the state government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and my claim for reinstatement with back wages was referred to the Industrial Tribunal in October 2004. Meanwhile, the company became sick and registered its case with the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985. Now the company has filed an application seeking stay of my reference, relying on Section 22 of the 1985 Act. Is Section 22 is a bar to the continuance of my reference before the tribunal?
Name withheld
A:Section 22 of the 1985 Act provides for suspension of any proceeding for the winding up of a sick company or for execution, distress or similar proceedings against any of the properties of such a company. The object is to provide a breathing space to the company and to enable the BIFR to formulate a scheme for its rehabilitation, if possible. Your claim for reinstatement should not be affected by Section 22. If the tribunal holds in your favour and grants back wages, any proceeding for recovery of such back wages may be hit by Section 22.
Send your letters to Inlaw at The Telegraph,
Jobs Desk, 6 Prafulla Sarkar Street,
Calcutta 700001;
or fax at 225 3142;
or send e-mails to jobs@abpmail.com.
