Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1478 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Saxena

2010-08-16

A.M.SAPRE, S.S.KOTHARI

body2010
Hon'ble KOTHARI, J.—The delay is condoned. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This appeal is by State Government filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance and against the order dated 6.7.2007 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 4499/06 by learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition and accordingly directed to reimburse the entire amount to the petitioner after deducting the amount which has already been paid to the petitioner as per his medical bills submi-tted by him for the treatment received by him in various hospitals. This is what the learned Single Judge directed while issuing a writ of mandamus as under:- "Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned orders dated 2.8.2005 and 24.12.2005 are herewith quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to reimburse the entire amount to the petitioner after deducting the amount which has already been paid to the petitioner as per medical bills so submitted. The petitioner shall also submit an affidavit along with an application regarding authenticity of the bills with a further undertaking that in case any of the bills so submitted by the petitioner is found forged, he shall liable to refund the amount with interest." 3. The short question which arose before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by respondent herein out of which this appeal arises was whether a State employee who has undergone a medical surgery for the ailment suffered by him is entitled to claim medical reimbursement of the expenses which he has admittedly incurred in receiving medical treatment in terms of the rules known as Rajasthan Civil Service (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2008 (for short called "the Rules'). Since there was some dispute about the extent of amount to be reimbursed to employee by the State and the State Government having declined to clear all medical bills the writ petitioner was compelled to file writ petition out of which this appeal arises claiming a writ of mandamus directing the State to reimburse all his medical claim which he incurred on his medical treatment in actual. 4. As stated supra the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition and gave directions mentioned supra. It is against these directions, the State has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. 5. 4. As stated supra the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition and gave directions mentioned supra. It is against these directions, the State has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal as in our view the appeal has no merit. 6. It is not in dispute that writ petitioner did suffer a heart attack. It is also not in dispute that he received medical treatment in the hospital known as "Santokaba Durlabhli Memorial Hospital" as Jaipur. Obviously, therefore, being a person who has suffered heart attack and undergone medical treatment by incurring expenses was entitled to claim reimbursement. In this case, writ petitioner submitted necessary bills. It was also not disputed that the hospital where writ petitioner received treatment was included in the list of approved hospitals in Rajasthan as Appendix No. 1 though at a later date. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. R.P. Singh, Additional Advocate General, therefore, fairly submitted that in the light of the inclusion of the hospital in the Appendix No. 1 when writ petitioner has taken the treatment, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with and has to be given effect to in favour of the writ petitioner. 8. Accordingly and in the light of the aforesaid discussion and the fact that the name of the hospital is now included in the approved hospitals in Appendix No. 1, appended to Rules the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. We hereby direct the appellant to release the amount of medical treatment actually incurred by writ petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It be sent to appellant by the Registry as also by the office of Advocate General within a week.