A division bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale, has asked the state government to process the medical bills of an employee who suffered an assault by the headmaster of a government-aided school.
The court’s attention was drawn to a plea lodged by the employee-petitioner of the said school, who had been denied compensation for medical expenses following the assault. The incident had led to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR), and subsequent arrest of the headmaster, although he was later released on bail.
The headmaster contested the plea, pointing out that while the petitioner claimed he was assaulted, the medical bills suggested it was an accident.
The court, in its order, observed that if the headmaster was contending that it was an assault instead of an accident then he would a grim future in criminal trial. “The choice is not so much the Petitioner’s as the 7th Respondent’s. If he maintains that there was an assault (because he opposes submission of bills claiming an accident), then the 7th Respondent faces a very grim future in the criminal trial. If he says nothing at all, leaves it to the Court, or says that on the ground of accident the bills may be passed, then his prospects are possibly brighter in that very criminal trial,” the court observed.
The counsel appearing for the headmaster chose to not press for the objection. The bench also noted that there was no reason why reimbursement should be denied just because the respondent was the headmaster. “That there was an incident is undeniable. That the Petitioner suffered injury is equally certain. We do not see why medical reimbursement should be denied to the Petitioner merely because the 7th Respondent happened to be the Headmaster,” the bench noted.
The bench, however, refrained from passing in directions with respect to the selection grade and said, “We are passing no directions in regard to selection grade, but we do expect the State Government to accept, process and to the extent permissible disburse the medical reimbursement as early as possible and without insisting on an approval from the 7th Respondent. The pension papers of the Petitioner are to be forwarded to the Government department. It would be foolish to expect the 7th Respondent to do this and, therefore, the Society which is the 5th Respondent through its secretary will furnish the pension documents to the State Government authority concerned.”
Hence, the bench asked the state to pay entitled retirement benefits, as well as eligible medical bills, within a span of six weeks.
Comments
0 comment