Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 21 (RAJ)

Prabhulal Aameta v. State of Rajasthan

2009-01-06

MAHESH BHAGWATI, R.C.GANDHI

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner by means of this petition seeks issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 17.02.2006 passed by the respondent no. 1 State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Law and Legal Affairs, Secretariat, Jaipur and further seeks writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reimburse he medical claim of Rs. 2,55,889/- to the petitioner which were spent on medical treatment to save his life. 2. The petitioner is a Judicial Officer working as Additional District Judge. He suffered a severe heart attack on 31.7.2005 at his village Bhensroadgarh. He was referred to S.N. Pareek Memorial Hospital, Kota on 1.8.05 but due to non-availability of heart specialist he was taken to Bharat Vikas Praishad Hospital and Research Centre at Kota where he was admitted and diagnosed and his 2-D Echo, colour Doplor and coronary Angiiorgraphy was done which indicated of CAD, Acute IWMI with cardiogenic shock and blockage in three arteries. His right coronary artery was 100% blocked, in left anterior descending 90% blockage was found. In left circumflex 90% blockage was found and CABG surgery graft to LAD, PDA and last OM branch was recommended by the Doctors. He was discharged from the hospital on 8.8.05. For treatment he paid Rs. 65,614/-. Heart problems further developed on 16.8.05 and was taken to heart specialist Dr. C.P. Srivastava who suggested for CD and operation after having opinion of the medical Board. Doctor recommended the constitution of the Medical Board but Medical Board was never constituted. In the meantime, the condition of the petitioner further deteriorated. He had a severe heart attack and was taken to Santokba Durlabhji Hospital, Jaipur where his surgery was done by Dr. Nikhil Parikh on 18.8.2005. On his treatment in this hospital, the petitioner spent Rs. 1,88,900/-. A certificate was also issued to that extent to the petitioner. The petitioner, in all, spent Rs. 2,55,889/- on medical treatment. He submitted these bills for reimbursement to the Registrar General of the High Court. Registrar General, in turn, sent the same to the Respondent No. 1, Law Secretary, Department of Law and Legal Affairs, Jaipur. The Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 17.2.2006, rejected the reimbursement on the ground that the appellant is not entitled to it as he has got treated in a private hospital. Registrar General, in turn, sent the same to the Respondent No. 1, Law Secretary, Department of Law and Legal Affairs, Jaipur. The Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 17.2.2006, rejected the reimbursement on the ground that the appellant is not entitled to it as he has got treated in a private hospital. The Registrar of the High Court on receiving the communication from the respondent No. 1, informed the petitioner vide letter dated 3.3.06. The petitioner therefore, seeks to quash the order dated 17.2.2006. 3. The petitioner under such circumstances, has approached the court seeking direction to the respondents for reimbursement of the bill and for quashing the order of the Respondent No. 1. The respondent has filed the reply stating therein that for the benefit of employees of the State, State Government has promulgated the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970. In terms of these rules, an employee is entitled to get free medical attendance and treatment in terms of the sub-rule 5(iii) of the Rules. The Government servant Is entitled to be reimbursed the expenses incurred by him for his treatment only if the treatment is taken by him in Government Hospital as an in-door/out-door patient. Since, the petitioner has taken the treatment from a private hospital, therefore, in terms of the rules he is not entitled for reimbursement of the medical claim. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The admitted facts are that the claim was filed by the petitioner in the year 2005 for reimbursement. Thereafter, the Government has promulgated the rules 'known as Rajasthan Judicial Officers (Medical Facilities) Rules, 2008, operative from 1.11.1999. Because of the operation of the rules retrospectively, case of the petitioner was to be considered by the respondents in terms of the aforesaid Rules of 2008. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. N.A. Naqvi that the case of the petitioner has not been considered in terms of the aforesaid rules. Consideration of the medical claim on the basis of the rules not applicable, itself shows that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected arbitrarily. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of rule 5, respondents are bound to reimburse the amount of medical claim as filed by the petitioner. For convenience rule 5(iii) is extracted below and reads as under- "5. Exception and modifications. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of rule 5, respondents are bound to reimburse the amount of medical claim as filed by the petitioner. For convenience rule 5(iii) is extracted below and reads as under- "5. Exception and modifications. -Judicial Officers shall be entitled to the medical facilities contained in Rule 4 of these rules subject to the following exceptions and modifications, namely (i) xxxx (ii) xxx (iii) The Judicial Officers shall be entitled to reimbursement of expenses incurred by them for himself or for his family members for the medical attendance and treatment obtained by them in any place other than in a Hospital or Dispensary maintained and/or notified by the State Government, to the same extent as they are entitled to under these rules for the reimbursement of expenses Incurred by them for medical attendance and treatment obtained in notified Hospital or Dispensary. Expenses shall be inclusive of charges for accommodation." 7. The aforesaid law makes it ample clear that for a Judicial Officer it is not necessary that he should get himself treated by notified hospital by the State Government. He can get the treatment even from a hospital which is not notified, in terms of Sub-Rule 5(iii) of Rules, 2008. The stand taken by the respondents in their reply is having bearing and application of the Rules of 1970 whereas the case of the petitioner has to be considered in terms of the Rules of 2008. We find that as per the provisions of Rule 5(iii), the petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of the medical claim even if he has taken the treatment from a private hospital. We have been told that Santokba Durlabhji Hospital is notified Hospital, but even if it is not notified, sub-rule (iii) of Rule 5 takes care of the situation and medical claim on such a ground cannot be rejected. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the petitioner has made out a case for allowing the writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition Is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.2.2006 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of Rules of 2008 and reimburse,the claim of the petitioner within a period of two months positively.Writ Petition Allowed. *******