Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 603 (PAT)

Ardhendu Kumar Singh v. Union Of India

2007-03-23

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent C.I.S.F. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application because the authorities concerned directed recovery of Rs. 17,227/-from the salary of the petitioner vide order dated 26.12.2002. In terms of the order this direction has been issued because Bokaro Thermal Power Station of D.V.C. refused to reimburse the difference in amount in the bills which was raised by the Bokaro Steel Plant General Hospital. 3. The admitted position is that the petitioner is a Constable and working under the respondent Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). At the relevant time in the year 2002 the petitioner was posted at Bokaro Thermal Power Station, D.V.C, Bokaro. Both the petitioner and his wife were taken ill and were admitted in the D.V.C. Hospital but since the authorities of D.V.C. Hospital found themselves inadequate to meet the medical needs of the petitioner and his wife, they were referred to another Public Sector Undertaking Hospital, which is Bokaro General Hospital under Bokaro Steel Plant, a unit of Steel Authority of India Limited. The petitioner and his wife after recovery returned to their place of posting. It seems that subsequently Bokaro General Hospital raised its bills for the period when the petitioner and his wife were admitted in that hospital. This bill was of Rs. 39,865/-. Since the petitioner is entitled to free treatment, therefore, there was no occasion for him to pay these bills. These bills, however, it seems was lodged on BTPS, DVC Hospital but the BTPS Hospital was only willing to pay Rs. 22,638/-. The reason for denying the balance liability of Rs. 17,227/- is not indicated as such. Since BTPS Hospital did not pay the entire amount, therefore, the CISF authorities in their wisdom decided to recover Rs. 17,227/- from the salary of the petitioner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that this demand which has been made by the respondents is not only arbitrary and illegal but also contrary to the rules because as a Central Government employee he is entitled to free treatment and as he was treated in a Public Sector Undertaking Hospital, both at BTPS, DVC and Bokaro General Hospital at Bokaro Steel City, therefore, the treatment cost will have to be borne by the respondent CISF. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner will be covered either under Rule 62 of the CISF (Amendment) Rules, 2001 or under the Central Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 . In either of the cases the employees of Central Government including the one belonging to Paramilitary service are entitled to free treatment. 5. A look at Rule 62 would show that the above position has been indicated in the said Rule. The Rule is quoted below for proper appreciation of issue: 62. MEDICAL FACILITIES.-Members of the Force shall be entitled to the facilities of the Central Government Health Scheme and in places where these facilities are not available, they shall be governed by the Central Civil Service? (Medical Attendant) Rules, 1944: Provided that when they are deployed in a Public Sector Undertaking: (i) in a case where such Public Sector Undertaking provides medical facilities to its employees, such members of the Force shall be entitled to avail such facilities free of charge; and (ii) if such facilities are not available, the authorised medical attendant for such members of the Force will be as provided in Centra! Civil Services (Medical Attendant) Rules, 1944. 6. A plain reading of this Rule would show that if a member of the Armed Force is deployed in a Public Sector Undertaking then the medical facilities available to employees of such Public Sector Undertakings will be made available to him and such facilities are free of any charge. The second proviso to the said Rule also states that if such facilities are not available then the authorised medical attendance for such members of the Forces will be provided under the Central Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 . The petitioner, therefore, contends that he was admitted initially at the DVC Hospital and later on referred to another Public Sector Undertaking Hospital at Bokaro Steel Plant since the facilities there were not adequate. In either case the petitioner was treated by a Hospital which belonged to a Public Sector Undertaking. The second aspect is that even if it is presumed that reference of the petitioner to Bokaro Steel Plant Hospital was outside the jurisdiction of the Public Sector Undertaking in question then in terms of the Rules he would be entitled to benefit under Medical Attendance Rules. The second aspect is that even if it is presumed that reference of the petitioner to Bokaro Steel Plant Hospital was outside the jurisdiction of the Public Sector Undertaking in question then in terms of the Rules he would be entitled to benefit under Medical Attendance Rules. The petitioner brings to my notice the definition which have been rendered in Rule 2(d), which defines a Government Hospital as well as the definition of treatment, which has been given in Rule 2(h). He further takes me to a clarification contained in the said Rule which states that a Hospital run by a Public Sector Undertaking shall mean to be a Government Hospital as defined under Sec.2(d). Rule 2(d), 2(h) and clarification to Rule 2(d) are quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- 2(d). "Government Hospital" includes a departmental dispensary whether full-time or part-time established and run by a department of the Government for the medical attendance and treatment of a class or classes of Government servants and members of their families, a hospital maintained by a local authority and any other hospital with which arrangements have been made by the Government for the treatment of Government servants. 2(h). "Treatment" means the use of all medical and surgical facilities available at the Government hospital in which the Government servant is treated and includes- (i) the employment of such pathological, bacteriological, radiological or other methods as are considered necessary by the authorized medical attendant: (18) Hospitals maintained by Public Sector Undertakings/Projects.-The hospitals/dispensaries attached to the Public Sector Undertakings/Projects may be treated as recognized hospitals/dispensaries for the treatment of Centra! Government servants and members of their families under Rule 2(d) of the CS (MA) Rules, 1944. Reimbursement of expenses incurred by Central Government servants for treatment in these hospitals/dispensaries will be made in accordance with the schedule of charges of these hospitals/dispensaries. 7. The petitioner further contends that in terms of these Rules he is entitled to free treatment and in either of the view whether it is a case to be treated under Rule 62 or a case under the Medical Attendance Rules there is no liability on his part to pay for his treatment. If some accounting problems had arisen between CISF and the DVC Hospital the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. 8. If some accounting problems had arisen between CISF and the DVC Hospital the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. 8. On the other hand a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and they too rely on Rule 26 of the Amended CISF Rules of 2001, but on going through the counter affidavit it is not understood as to how this Rule in any manner authorises the respondents to recover the amount from the petitioner tor having availed of medical facility at Bokaro General Hospital on reference having been made by DVC Hospital. This Court fails to understand as to on what basis the respondent authorities have declared certain items to be non-reimbursible medicines amounting to Rs. 17,227/- because the bill in question has been raised by a Hospital of a Public Sector Undertaking and that has been defined to mean a Government Hospital which has to render free medical treatment to the petitioner in terms of the Rules. 9. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the demand which has been made on the petitioner to reimburse Rs. 17,227/- against the medical bill is misplaced and arbitrary. The order contained in Annexure-1 is accordingly quashed. The petitioner states that the above amount has already been recovered from his salary since the order was passed on December 26, 2002. If that be the position the respondents are directed to refund the above amount to the petitioner within one month from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. 10. This writ application accordingly stands allowed.