Punjab-Haryana High Court
U.K. Sharma vs State Of Haryana & Others on 21 February, 2013
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CWP No. 15875 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.15875 of 2011(O&M)
Date of decision: 21.02.2013
U.K. Sharma .... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana & others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. C.B. Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
....
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. (ORAL).
The petitioner, who is a retired Lecturer, has filed the instant writ petition impugning the order dated 23.05.2011 (Annexure P-13) whereby his claim for medical reimbursement of the bills towards the medical treatment pertaining to bilateral knee replacement in a private hospital amounting to Rs.3,43,951/- has been rejected on the basis that it was mandatory for certification to have been done as regards emergency treatment in a private/unapproved hospital by the Civil Surgeon concerned.
Shorn of all unnecessary details, learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the specific pleadings contained in paragraph 17 of the petition as also to the information supplied to the petitioner under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. In this regard, learned counsel would refer to document at Annexure P-15 whereby CWP No. 15875 of 2011 (O&M) 2 the petitioner has been supplied information from the State Public Information Officer-cum-Superintendent, office of Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Health Department and it has been admitted that in the case of Sh. S.D. Bhamri, IAS (retired), medical reimbursement to the extent of Rs.9,95,000/- had been reimbursed for medical treatment of an identical nature i.e. knee replacement surgery, even though the proposal for emergency treatment had been rejected by the Medical Board, Panchkula. Based upon document at Annexure P-15 a specific plea of discrimination has been raised in the writ petition. Reference in this regard may be made to the categoric submissions contained in para 18(ii).
In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, the reply is totally evasive as regards the plea of discrimination. In any case, there is no denial as regards the averments made in respect of Sh. Bhamri. It can well be taken that there is a tacit admission with regard to such averments.
It has been held consistently in a catena of judgments that right to life is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it would certainly relate to even an activity relating to medical treatment of a citizen of India and a former employee of the State. Prima facie there does appear to be a clear-cut case of discrimination in so far as the petitioner is concerned as regards CWP No. 15875 of 2011 (O&M) 3 reimbursement of his medical bills are concerned.
Without expressing any final view in the matter, the facts of the present case would certainly call for intervention and for directions to be issued to respondent No.2 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner as regards his claim for medical reimbursement is concerned. It shall be open for the petitioner to submit before respondent No.2 a detailed claim afresh within a period of 2 weeks from today. In the eventuality of any such claim being raised, it shall be obligatory for respondent No.2 to take a final decision in the matter which would be in the nature of reconsideration of the matter and specially in the light of the medical bills of Sh. Bhamri, IAS (retired) having been reimbursed. In any case, a final view in this regard be taken and orders be passed within a period of 8 weeks of submission of the claim by the petitioner.
The present writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
February 21, 2013 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) Diwaker Gulati JUDGE