Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1295 (RAJ)

Kishore Lal Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

2015-07-14

SUNIL AMBWANI, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The notices were issued of this petition on 3.3.2006. On 1.5.2006, Mr. S.K.Vyas, Govt. Advocate, had appeared on behalf of the State. He is not present. 3. Mr. Yashpal Khileree on behalf of Mr. G.R.Punia, who is appearing for respondent No.2-the Registrar General, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur, has sought an adjournment. Since the High Court has admitted the case of the petitioner, we do not propose to adjourn the matter. 4. Petitioner was serving as a Judicial Officer in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, when his wife Smt. Veena Mathur suffered heart ailment and was advised to take medical treatment in Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi on 22.10.2003. The Office of the Principal, S.M.S.Medical College & Controller of the Attached Hospitals, Jaipur on the recommendation of the panel of doctors in terms of Rule 7(i) of Rajasthan Civil Services Medical Attendant Rules, 1979 verified that the petitioner's wife has to go to Escorts Heart Hospital, New Delhi for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery, as she has been suffering from Coronary Artery Disease and that since this facility is available in SMS Hospital, Jaipur, it confined the financial sanction to Rs.50,000/- only. The Office order reads as follows: "Office Order In terms of Rule 7(i) of Rajasthan Civil Services Medical Attendant Rules, 1979 and in accordance with the amended orders, sanction is hereby accorded in respect of Mrs. Veena Mathur w/o Shri K.L.Mathur, Sessions Judge, ACD Cases Court, Bikaner to go to Escort Heart Hospital, New Delhi (on patient's request) for CABG as she has been suffering from CAD. Since this facilities are available in S.M.S.Hospital, Jaipur so the financial entitlement will be that of S.M.S. Hospital (subject to prior permission of finance Deptt., Jaipur) i.e. Rs.50,000/- ( Rs.Fifty thousand only)on the reommendation of the panel, this is necessary for the recovery of the patient. Under rule 7(i) (e), one attendant is also allowed to accompany with the patient. Sd/- Principal & Controller" 5. The petitioner's wife underwent Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery in Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi on 22.10.2003. She was discharged on 1.11.2003 with advise to take rest for three months. Under rule 7(i) (e), one attendant is also allowed to accompany with the patient. Sd/- Principal & Controller" 5. The petitioner's wife underwent Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery in Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi on 22.10.2003. She was discharged on 1.11.2003 with advise to take rest for three months. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted the bills of Rs.2,16,000/- of the Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi for reimbursement, after deducting a sum of Rs.7,500/- received by him. He had requested for reimbursement of Rs.2,08,500/- in place of Rs.50,000/-, sanctioned by the Office order dated 16.10.2003. 6. The High Court has supported the case of the petitioner and has also relied on the recommendation made by the Registrar General for reimbursement of the full amount, which was spent by the petitioner. 7. The State Government is conspicuous by its absence. It has neither filed any reply nor is represented by any counsel. 8. We find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the bills for reimbursement were submitted in the year 2003, the Rajasthan Judicial Officers (Medical Facilities) Rules, 2008, which were notified on 23rd September, 2008, had come into force with effect from 1.11.1999, enacted in pursuance of the Shetty Commission established by the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, 2002(4) SCC 247 , provide for statutory rules for reimbursement and entitlement of medical facilities. Rule 5 of the Rules of 2008 is quoted below: "5. Exception and modification.- 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) The Judicial Officer shall also be entitled to claim expenses incurred by them for medical attendance and treatment obtained by him and his family members in private hospital/Dispensaries, notified by the State Government in each city, District Head Quarter and Sub-Divisional Headquarter for the medical treatment of Judicial Officers and members of their family. The expenses shall be inclusive of the Charges for accommodation in the place where such treatment is taken; (ii) For the purpose of medical treatment of Judicial Officers and member of his family, Doctor of any notified hospital and dispensary shall also be considered as the authorized medical attendant; (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; (iv) There shall not be any ceiling on reimbursement except to the extent of in patient room entitlement, in patient room entitlement shall be as admissible to the State Government employees; and (v) There shall not be any ceiling on reimbursement of expenditure for treatments like kidney transplant, open heart surgery etc. or any disease notified by the Government." 9. Rule 5 (v) of the Rules of 2008 provides that there shall not be any ceiling on reimbursement of expenditure for treatments like kidney transplant, open heart surgery or any disease notified by the Government. The entire amount, therefore, incurred on heart surgery of petitioner's wife is liable to be reimbursed. As regards the treatment in the Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi is concerned, the hospital has to be treated as accredited hospital for treatment of the petitioner's wife, inasmuch as the panel of the doctors had made recommendation and on which, the Office order was issued by the Principal of the SMS Medical College & Controller of the Attached Hospitals, Jaipur for treatment of petitioner's wife in Escorts Heart Hospital, New Delhi. The State Government, therefore, cannot deny the entitlement of the wife of petitioner for treatment in Escorts Heart Hospital, New Delhi. 10. The Rules of 2008, though notified on 23rd September, 2008, were made applicable for reimbursement with effect from 1.11.1999. The petitioner is thus entitled for the full reimbursement of treatment of his wife in Escorts Heart Hospital, New Delhi, for which recommendation has already been made by the Registrar General of this Court. 11. 10. The Rules of 2008, though notified on 23rd September, 2008, were made applicable for reimbursement with effect from 1.11.1999. The petitioner is thus entitled for the full reimbursement of treatment of his wife in Escorts Heart Hospital, New Delhi, for which recommendation has already been made by the Registrar General of this Court. 11. The writ petition is allowed. The State-respondents are directed to reimburse the amount of bills of Rs.2,16,000/- of the Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi, after deducting Rs.7,500/-, to the petitioner with interest at the rate of six percent per annum, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.