Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jai Prakash Sharma vs Rsrtc And Ors on 12 March, 2012
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
SBCWP No.698/2008.
Jai Prakash Sharma
Vs.
RSRTC & Ors.
[ 1 ]
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.698/2008.
Jai Prakash Sharma
Vs
RSRTC & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER :: 12th March 2012.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. P.R. Singh, for the petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Lohra, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Nitin Ojha, for the respondents.
<><>
BY THE COURT:
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
The petitioner, who had been working as Divisional Manager with the respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('RSRTC') at its Jodhpur Depot, has filed this petition for being aggrieved against denial of reimbursement of the medical expenses, said to have been incurred by him in "Multi Level Cervical Leminoplasty" at the Bombay Hospital & Medical Researchj Centre, Mumbai. It is submitted that the petitioner had to undergo the said surgery at Mumbai for the reasons and circumstances beyond his control; and the action of the respondents in not sanctioning reimbursement of the amount of Rs. 61,848/- spent by the petitioner in this surgery was unjustified.
The respondents have filed a reply contending against the submissions made by the petitioner. It is submitted that the kind of ailment referred by the petitioner, about neck pain and SBCWP No.698/2008.
Jai Prakash Sharma Vs. RSRTC & Ors.
[ 2 ] numbness problem, could not have been a case of emergency so as to justify the petitioner taking the treatment at Mumbai; and at any rate, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the expenses so incurred at Mumbai in a hospital not duly notified by the respondents. It is submitted that the respondents nevertheless examined the claim of the petitioner in the light of Rule 6(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 ['the Rules of 1970'], which have been adopted by the respondent RSRTC; and report was requisitioned from the Superintendent, SMS Hospital, Jaipur. It is further submitted that after receiving the report from the said Superintendent that requisite surgery was available in the SMS Hospital and wherefor, maximum expenditure was quantified to the tune of Rs.18,000/-, the respondents issued the sanction for payment of this amount of Rs.18,000/- to the petitioner against the medical expenditure. According to the respondents, the petitioner is lawfully entitled to this amount of Rs.18,000/- only. The sanction for payment of the said amount of Rs.18,000/- has been placed on record as Annexure-R/2. It is submitted that the petitioner has indeed received such payment on 26.04.2008, though under protest.
After having considered the matter in its totality, this Court is unable to find any illegality in the order so passed by the respondents. From the submissions as made by the petitioner, it is difficult to accept that the referred ailment spurt up all of a sudden leading to a case of such emergency as to justify his taking treatment at Mumbai while having gone there SBCWP No.698/2008.
Jai Prakash Sharma Vs. RSRTC & Ors.
[ 3 ] on leave. Admittedly, the petitioner had taken the said treatment at Mumbai without having been referred by the concerned Government Hospital/Medical College.
In the totality of the circumstances, this Court finds no reason to consider issuance of any writ, order or direction in this matter.
The petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
cpgoyal/-