Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 411 (GUJ)

Dinubhai Manibhai Amin v. Dehgam Municipality

2009-06-24

JAYANT PATEL

body2009
Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner is serving with respondent - Municipality as Tax Inspector and retired on 29.02.2004. When he was in service, his wife Mrs. Kailashben D. Amin had a chest pain and was admitted in Civil Hospital and thereafter she was admitted in Krishna Hospital, Ahmedabad for by-pass surgery on 12.05.2003 and ultimately the operation was performed. The hospital had issued the bill of Rs. 1,27,193/-. The petitioner finally settled the bill for Rs. 90,000/-. The petitioner had prayed to the Municipality for reimbursement of the bill of Rs. 76,869/- which was considered by the General Body of the Municipality on 29.10.2003 and it was resolved that the approval of the Director of Municipalities be obtained for payment of the said bill and after the approval is obtained, the payment be made. The Municipality, thereafter, has entered into correspondence with the Director of Municipalities for seeking approval. The Director of Municipalities, thereafter, had called upon the Municipality to supply any rules for medical bill if adopted by the Municipality but no such details were supplied by the Municipality stating that no rules are adopted or prescribed for the medical bill. The Director of Municipalities, thereafter, vide communication dated 04.12.2004, communicated to the Municipality that as no rules are framed, no sanction is required to be granted but the Municipality may adopt the rules and necessary action may be taken for medical allowance. Since no payment was made to the petitioner, the present petition. 2. Heard Mr. Patel for the petitioner, Mr. Shah for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 3. 3. On the aspects of operation of the wife of the petitioner and incurring of the expenses, there may not be any dispute but the only question to be considered is whether the Municipality can be directed to pay the bill of operation claimed by the petitioner for his wife? 4. On behalf of the Municipality the Chief Officer has filed the affidavit and at Para 7 it has been stated as under: “I further say and submit that till today Municipality has never paid and/or reimburse any medical bill of employee for his family members and dependants as it is not permissible.” 5. 4. On behalf of the Municipality the Chief Officer has filed the affidavit and at Para 7 it has been stated as under: “I further say and submit that till today Municipality has never paid and/or reimburse any medical bill of employee for his family members and dependants as it is not permissible.” 5. The aforesaid statement if examined with the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner together with the petition, it appears that after the Resolution of the Municipality dated 29.10.2003, the proposal was moved to the Director of Municipalities for sanction by the Municipality. In response thereto, vide letter dated 04.03.2004, the Director of Municipalities had called upon the Municipality to supply sanctioned rules for medical treatment, if any. In response thereto, vide letter dated 10.06.2004, the Municipality had communicated to the Director of Municipalities that no rules are got approved or got sanctioned by the Municipality. However, the Government Resolutions extending the benefit of the medical reimbursement to the Government employees were forwarded. This shows that it is an admitted position that there are no sanctioned rules framed by the Municipality for permitting medical reimbursement to the family members of the employee. The petitioner has also not produced any material showing that sanctioned rules are framed by the Municipality for reimbursement of the medical expenses for family members of the employees of the Municipality. Therefore, it has to be concluded that there are no sanctioned rules for medical reimbursement for the family members of the employees of the Municipality. 6. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to contend that the Resolution of the Municipality dated 29.10.2003 shows that the Municipality has approved the bill and the permission for sanction is to be obtained of the Director of Municipalities. He, therefore, submitted that when the Director of Municipalities has communicated to the Municipality vide letter dated 04.12.2004 for necessary action as per the rules, it is required for the Municipality to reimburse the same. 7. The contention is ex-facia ill-founded in as much as the rules are required to be framed by the Municipality and the sanction of the Director of Municipalities is required for such purpose. The rules for medical reimbursement cannot be equated with the Resolution of the Municipality for a particular bill. 7. The contention is ex-facia ill-founded in as much as the rules are required to be framed by the Municipality and the sanction of the Director of Municipalities is required for such purpose. The rules for medical reimbursement cannot be equated with the Resolution of the Municipality for a particular bill. The interpretation as sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Municipality accepted the bill for sanction, cannot be accepted because the Municipality only resolved to forward the bill to the Director of Municipalities for sanction and the payment was to be made only after the sanction is granted by the Director of Municipalities. Under these circumstances, the contention cannot be accepted. 8. Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that if the rules of Govt. employees permit the reimbursement for medical expenses of the family members, the municipal employees should also be entitled for such benefit and consequently the petitioner would be entitled for such benefit. He submitted that therefore this Court may consider the matter accordingly. 9. It is true that the Government by its Resolution has extended the benefit of medical reimbursement to the family members of the Government employees with particular limit and guidelines but such policy of the State Government automatically would not apply to the municipal employees or their family members. It may be that in a given case the Municipality may adopt such policy of the Government and thereafter may frame the rules and such draft rules may be considered by the Director of Municipalities and after sanction, the terms and conditions may be governed accordingly. But, in absence of such policy of the Government adopted or the circular of the Government adopted by the Municipality and in absence of any sanction from the Director of Municipalities for such purpose, it cannot be said that such policy of the Government would automatically apply to all municipal employees and consequently the municipal employee would be entitled to such benefit. Further, while granting sanction to the rules, if any, framed by the Municipality, the Director of Municipalities may examine all relevant circumstances including the financial condition of the Municipality and thereafter may consider the matter. In any case, all such exercise is neither proposed by the Municipality nor undertaken by the Director of Municipalities. Hence, the said contention of Mr. Patel cannot be accepted. 10. In any case, all such exercise is neither proposed by the Municipality nor undertaken by the Director of Municipalities. Hence, the said contention of Mr. Patel cannot be accepted. 10. In view of the above, the petition fails and therefore the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to cost.