Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 770 (JK)

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Jammu and Kashmir

2017-08-31

TASHI RABSTAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Impugned in this petition is Order No.EMD/II/1346-49 dated 15.12.2016. The reason for putting it to challenge, as stated by petitioner in the writ petition in hand, is that in terms of the aforesaid impugned order, only an amount of Rs.2,12,712.92, has been paid in his favour on account of medical reimbursement, whereas the Administrative Wing (Financial Advisor/Chief Accounts Officer, Power Development Department) has, vide letter No.PDD/H/AC/58/2009 dated 27.07.2009, sanctioned more than what has been released in terms of impugned order, that is, the funds to the tune of Rs.2.82 Lacs have been released to be disbursed in favour of petitioner as medical reimbursement. By impugned order an amount of Rs.69,288/- remains unpaid to petitioner. Thus, the gravamen of the petitioner is that a direction, after quashing the impugned order, may be passed, directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.69,288/- to the petitioner towards the satisfaction of his claim in respect of his medical reimbursement. 2. The respondents have filed their Reply. The factum of the treatment of the petitioner out of the State has been admitted by the respondents. They contend that Rs.69,288/- has not been disbursed to the petitioner predominantly for the reason that the petitioner was to get his treatment in AIIMS. The respondents have not denied that an amount of Rs.2.82 lacs stood released in favour of the petitioner by the Financial Advisor/CAO of the Power Development Department in accordance with the bills submitted by the petitioner. The deficient amount of Rs.69,288/- has not been, according to the petitioner, paid to him as the same amount would have been incurred by the petitioner, if he had been treated in AIIMS. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Mr. Koul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, an employee of the Power Development Department, had been permitted to proceed out of the J&K State for treatment of his heart ailment. The petitioner proceeded to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi (AIIMS) for treatment on 25.02.2009. The petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.2.00 lacs as an advance amount and the appointed date for the surgery was fixed on 02.03.2009. However, the petitioner suffered an emergency before 02.03.2009, and he, having regard to his deteriorated condition, was operated in MAX Hospital at New Delhi. The petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.2.00 lacs as an advance amount and the appointed date for the surgery was fixed on 02.03.2009. However, the petitioner suffered an emergency before 02.03.2009, and he, having regard to his deteriorated condition, was operated in MAX Hospital at New Delhi. The emergency, according to the petitioner, was grave and severe and if negotiated, the life of the petitioner could have been put to peril. In this behalf learned counsel refers to the communication dated 08.04.2009, inked from the desk of Chief Engineer, Electric Maintenance and R.E. Wing, Jammu; the copy of which has been placed on record. Perusal whereof divulges that a request was made to the Administrative Department for release of Rs.2,81,712.62 to satisfy the medical claim of the petitioner. Financial Advisor/CAO of Power Development Department appears to have released an amount of Rs.2.82 lacs for the abovementioned purpose. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner suffered heart ailment during his active service in the respondent-department and on being admitted in Government Medical College, Jammu, he was referred to outside the State Hospital/Heart Institute for treatment. Petitioner immediately proceeded to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, for treatment, where he was treated, but the date of surgery was given for 02.03.2009. Petitioner intended himself to be treated at AIIMS, but in view of longer date given for the surgery there, he, in the face of inevitable emergency, which if negotiated, would have endangered the life of the petitioner and that is why he was operated in MAX Hospital at New Delhi. The petitioner was, admittedly, referred to for treatment outside the State. He, therefore, had the right to take steps in self-preservation. He did not have to stand in queue before AIIMS, the meaning and assembling of which, barefacedly, makes its meetings difficult to happen. The petitioner also did not have to stand in queue in the AIIMS and could go elsewhere to an alternative hospital as per policy for emergent situation. Had he waited for the date given by the AIIMS, the consequences might have been disastrous and the purpose would have been defeated. There would have, thus, left nothing at the end if not cured immediately as advised. The rules cannot be interpreted to operate harshly in such emergent cases. Had he waited for the date given by the AIIMS, the consequences might have been disastrous and the purpose would have been defeated. There would have, thus, left nothing at the end if not cured immediately as advised. The rules cannot be interpreted to operate harshly in such emergent cases. Sometimes such types of cases are required to be dealt with by the respondents with element of human approach. On that hypothesis, it is fair and just that the respondents have to pay the petitioner, the rates admissible as per MAX Hospital, New Delhi. The petitioner has been disbursed deficient medical claim than what was sanctioned by the Financial Advisor of the Department. In this regard, the petitioner has already submitted the bills to the respondents. Rule 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil services (Medical Attendance-Cum-Allowance)) Rules 1990 negotiates the situation in the matter. 6. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, the respondents are directed to release/disburse the unpaid amount of Rs.69,288 to the petitioner in order to satisfy his claim in respect of his medical reimbursement within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.