Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1366 (MP)

PRASANNA KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF M. P.

2009-12-14

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2009
Judgment Shantanu Kemkar, J. ( 1. ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the second respondent Commissioner Pension, General Provident Fund and Insurance Government of M.P. Finance Department the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 2. ) Briefly stated the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Grade-I in the establishment of the High Court of M.P. Bench at Indore. He on attaining the age of superannuation was retired from Government service w.e.f. 31.10.2006. After his retirement from Government service he was employed by the State Government on contract basis. ( 3. ) The case of the petitioner is that on 05.05.2007 while he was working in the High Court on the basis of his contract employment he suffered a massive heart attack. He was taken to CHL Apollo Hospital, Indore where on the advise of the treating doctors open heart surgery was performed on him on 12.05.2007. ( 4. ) The petitioner being a pensioner submitted an application (Annexure P-6) for assistance in the prescribed Form-A as provided under M.P. Pensioners Welfare Fund Rules, 1997 (for short Rules of 1997). His application for assistance was rejected by the second respondent vide order dated 08.01.2008 on the ground that the CHL Apollo Hospital, Indore where he was treated and operated is not a recognised hospital for treatment of retired Government servants. Aggrieved the petitioner had filed a writ petition No. 1416/2008 (s) before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed by quashing the order dated 08.01.2008 by which the petitioners claim was rejected with a direction to the second respondent to reconsider the petitioners case in the light of the Circular dated 03.04.2006 issued by the first respondent Department of Public Health and Family Welfare Government of M.P. in regard to the recognition of CHL Apollo Hopsital, Indore. ( 5. ) In terms of the order dated 21.10.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.l416/08(s) the petitioners application for assistance was reconsidered by the second respondent and the same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 24.01.2009 (Annexure P-l) holding that the recognition granted to CHL Apollo Hospital, Indore vide order dated 03.04.2006 (Annexure P-7) under M.P.Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 (for short Rules of 1958) is not applicable in the case of retired Government employee. Aggrieved by the said order dated 24.01.2009 (Annexure P-l) the petitioner has once again approached this Court. ( 6. ) Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that when the State Government has granted recognition to CHL Apollo Hospital, Indore for the purposes of Rules of 1958 it was necessary for the State Government to have treated the said hospital to be a recognised hospital for the purposes of retired Government servants/pensioners. He argued that on account of emergency the petitioner was required to be admitted in the CHL Apollo Hospital, Indore where the emergency open heart surgery was performed upon him. In the circumstances, the rejection of application for assistance is illegal. ( 7. ) Smt. Rashmi Pandit, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate on the other hand argued that Rule 1 (3) of Rules of 1958 clearly provides that these Rules shall not apply to retired Government servants. In the circumstances according to her the recognition of CHL Apollo Hospital, Indore for the purposes of Rules of 1958 will not automatically give recognition of the said hospital for the purposes of Rules, 1997 which provides list ofapproved hospitals for the purposes of said rules. ( 8. ) It is not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted his application for assistance in Form A under Rules of 1997 treating himself to be an applicant as defined under Rule 3 (a) of Rules of 1997. On going through the Rules of 1997, I find that Appendix -1 of Rules of 1997 provides for list of approved hospitals. The list given in Appendix -1 does not contain name of CHL Apollo Hospital, Indore as an approved hospital for the purposes of Rules of 1997. In the circumstances, the recognition of CHL Apollo Hospital, Indore by the State Government for the purposes of Rules of 1958 which is applicable to Government servants cannot automatically bring the said hospital in the list ofapproved hospitals under Rules of 1997. In the circumstances, the impugned rejection order dated 24.01.2009 (Annexure P-1) is perfectly legal and justified and the same needs no interference. ( 9. ) However on a close scrutiny of Rules of 1958, I find that Rule 2 (b) of Rules of 1958 provides that the Rules shall apply to Government servants employed on contract basis. In the circumstances, the impugned rejection order dated 24.01.2009 (Annexure P-1) is perfectly legal and justified and the same needs no interference. ( 9. ) However on a close scrutiny of Rules of 1958, I find that Rule 2 (b) of Rules of 1958 provides that the Rules shall apply to Government servants employed on contract basis. It is not in dispute that after his retirement the petitioner has been employed on contract basis and during such employment he suffered a massive heart attack and was required to perform open heart surgery in CHL Apollo Hospital, Indore which has recognition under Rules of 1958. In these circumstances, the petitioner could have applied for reimbursement in Form I under Rule 8 (1) of Rules of 1958 and his application for reimbursement could have been allowed by the respondents after its scrutiny in accordance with law. It appears that under some misconception the petitioner approached to the respondents seeking assistance under Rules of 1997. ( 10. ) Be that as it may. Having regard to the fact that after his retirement the petitioner was employed by the State Government on contract basis and during the said employment he received heart attack and was required to go for open heart surgery, in my view the petitioners case requires consideration in terms of Rules of 1958. Accordingly, I am inclined to dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to submit application in Form 1 of Rules of 1958 within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The documents which the petitioner has already submitted along with his application in Form A of Rules of 1997 shall be treated to be part of the application under Form I of Rules of 1958. On receipt of such application under Rules of 1958 the competent authority of the respondents shall examine the same and shall take appropriate decision on it on merits treating the same to be within time and keeping in view the Circular dated 03.04.2006 (Annexure P-7) issued under Rules of 1958 which though is not applicable for retired Government servant but is applicable to Government servants employed on contract basis in view of Rule 2 (b) of Rules of 1958. On scrutiny of the said application if it is found that the petitioner is entitled for reimbursement under Rules of 1958 the monetary benefits be extended in his favour within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of said application. ( 11. ) With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of.