An employee's entitlement to compensation for disablement may be influenced by the continued receipt of salary and reimbursement of medical expenses by the employer.

1. This appeal is directed against that part of the order dated 9.1.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9062 of 2008* by which the claim of compensation on account of permanent total disablement of the appellant no.1 occurred in course of duty has been rejected.

2. Appellant No. 1 is the husband of appellant no. 2. Appellant No.1 was posted as Clerk-cum-Casnier at Sonho Branch of respondent no.1 Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank in the district of Saran since April, 1995. Appellant No. 2 is also admittedly a Class-Ill employee in the said Bank. On 14.10.2005 while appellant no.1 was carrying cash amount of rupees two lacs from the Main Branch, Chapra to Sonho Branch on his motorcycle he was intercepted by some unknown robbers who looted away the cash by inflicting gun shot injury on the back side of appellant no. 1. He was treated at Chapra and from there he was referred to Patna where he was admitted at Rajeshwar Hospital on 14.10.2,005. On 18.10.2005 appellant no. 1 was referred to Indian Spinal Injuries Centre at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi for specialized treatment due to the reason that there was fracture injury of D 10-11 Vertebra with paraplegia with bladder and bowel involvement. Appellant No. 1 was admitted there on 19.10.2005 and was discharged on 24.12.2005 with the advise to take certain drugs and to continue physiotherapy and care of bowel and bladder. In spite of the above treatment, appellant no. 1 is unable to move since he was suffering from Paraplegia and, as such, he wanted compensation for the injuries suffered by him from the Bank.

3. The connected writ petition was filed with a prayer that the Bank may be directed to pay compensation to the appellants to the tune of Rs. 76,22,216/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum because appellant no. 1 has suffered disability and the robbery was on account of failure of the Bank to provide guard/security to him while he was carrying cash to the concerned Bank.

4. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that if appellant no. 2. the wife, is an employee in the Bank and has not been paid her salary for any period when she has worked or was on authorized leave, such salary should also be paid to her without any delay.

5. The reasons for disposal of the writ petition is that even after the accident, appellant no. 1, who has sustained injuries during the course of duty, is still getting his due salary from the respondent Bank and the medical expenses are also reimbursed by the Bank but the Court gave opportunity to the petitioner to avail other remedy as is available.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that all the expenses incurred in the treatment of appellant no. 1 is being reimbursed by the Bank. It is also submitted that the respondent Bank is paying and continue to pay him his salary till the date of superannuation as he is bed ridden.

7. In the circumstances, we are of the view that no interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required by this Court.

8. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of.