Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 32 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Tara Chand Khatri

2003-01-09

H.R.PANWAR, N.N.MATHUR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 23.5.2002 1 having found the matter squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Beech of this Court in Shankerlal v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2000(3) WLC 585 allowed the writ petition and granted the relief in terms of the judgment in the said case. Being aggrieved of the order of the learned Single Judge, the State has preferred the instant Special Appeal. 2. On 23.10.1999 while the respondent-petitioner was posted as Assistant Collector, Bilara, he suffered cardiac problem, as such, he got himself checked at Government Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. The doctor gave him treatment by prescribing certain medicines. He was also advised for coronary angiography. He returned to Bilara and remained busy in panchayat elections. On 15.1.2000, he suffered heart problem and, as such, he was immediately rushed to the Goyal Hospital at Jodhpur. There was strike in the Government Hospital, as such, he was taken to private hospital. It is averred that when he was taken to the hospital, he was in breathless condition and was on oxygen. The doctor gave initial treatment and advised to take him immediately to Delhi. The coronary angiography was performed upon him in the Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi on 28.1.2000. It was found that his right artery was blocked upto 99% and the other two were blocked upto 95% and 80% respectively. Thus, he was advised for immediate bypass surgery. The say of the respondent-petitioner is that he was not mentally prepared to undergo the bypass surgery, as such, he got a railway ticket booked for his return on 29.1.2000. He has also given the details of the ticket in the writ petition. However looking to his condition, he was not allowed to move. The coronary angiography bypass grafting (bypass surgery) was done on 3.2.2000. He was discharged on 12.2.2000. For his treatment, he spent a sum of Rs.2,14,000/.. He placed on record the bills of the Escorts Hospital at Annexs. 7 to 11. He moved an application to the State Government for reimbursement of his bills The Collector, Jodhpur made a recommendation to the Government for reimbursement of the medical expenses. This was objected by the State. The application for the re-imbursement was rejected by the State Government under the communication dated 19.6.2000. 7 to 11. He moved an application to the State Government for reimbursement of his bills The Collector, Jodhpur made a recommendation to the Government for reimbursement of the medical expenses. This was objected by the State. The application for the re-imbursement was rejected by the State Government under the communication dated 19.6.2000. Thus, the petitioner approached to this Court by way of petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The State took the stand that in view of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Service (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1970', the petitioner was required to obtain a certificate from the Principal of a Medical College/Director of Medical & Health Services to the effect that treatment for the disease from which he was suffering, was not available in any Government hospital in the State. This plea was rejected by the learned Single Judge following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Shankarlal's case (supra). 3. It is contended by Mr. B.S. Bhati, learned panel lawyer for the Department that the ratio laid down in Shankarlal's case (supra) has no bearing on the controversy involved in the instant case and, as such, the learned Single Judge has committed error in granting relief to the respondent petitioner. 4. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Division Bench in Shankarlal's case (supra). In the said case, petitioner Shankerlal along with his wife after applying for four days' leave, went to Delhi for domestic work. During their stay at Delhi, on 19.6.1996, his wife suddenly developed cardiac problem, there fore, she was immediately taken to the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre. The angiography was performed and she was advised for open heart surgery costing approximately Rs. 2 lacs. The petitioner in that case moved an application from Delhi on the next day informing the concerned authorities that due to certain cardiac problem, his wife has been admitted to the Escorts Hospital. He also moved an application for necessary sanction of an advance payment of Rs. 2 lacs for medical treatment of his wife but the same was not granted to him. Since the health condition of his wife was deteriorating day by day, the open heart surgery was performed on 9.7.1996. Unfortunately, the operation did not succeed and she died on 12.7.1996. 2 lacs for medical treatment of his wife but the same was not granted to him. Since the health condition of his wife was deteriorating day by day, the open heart surgery was performed on 9.7.1996. Unfortunately, the operation did not succeed and she died on 12.7.1996. He raised a claim for reimbursement for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs, which was denied by the State Government. He filed a writ petition which was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the petitioner ought to have contracted the Government Hospital either of the Central Government or of the State Government before availing treatment in Escorts Hospital. The matter was carried in appeal. The Division Bench after a thorough discussion and considering the various decisions of the Apex Court and this Court interpreting the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1970 held as follows: "Therefore, in our opinion, the plea that because the petitioner-appellant has not obtained a certificate before availing the benefit of treatment in an approved Hospital outside the State of Rajasthan u/R. 7(1) of the Rules, he is not entitled to any reimbursement, cannot be sustained in the very nature of the facts and circumstances of the present case where it was physically impossible for petitioner-appellant to have obtained a certificate from any authority at Delhi that such facility is not available within the State of Rajasthan." 5. On the facts of the case, the Division Bench found that wife of the petitioner fell ill, while she was in Delhi and she was required to take treatment for her ailment immediately. In such circumstances. it was not possible to obtain the requisite certificate. Thus. it clearly emerges that normally, the requirement of Ru a 7 of the Rules of 1970 is required to be followed but in a case where it is no: possible to follow the said rule, an employee cannot be denied to reimbursement of bills for just non-compliance of Rule.It is to be borne in mind that self preservation of one's life is necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined u/Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the instant case, respondent petitioner suffered a heart attack and he was immediately rushed to Delhi. On angiography, he was advised to undergo bypass surgery. 6. In the instant case, respondent petitioner suffered a heart attack and he was immediately rushed to Delhi. On angiography, he was advised to undergo bypass surgery. In these circumstances, there was no time left with him to obtain a requisite certificate u/R. 7 of the Rules of 1970. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition relying on the Division Bench judgment in Shankerlal's case (supra). 7. Consequently, we find no merit in the State Appeal and the same is dismissed summarily.Special Appeal Dismissed. *******