Patna High Court - Orders
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Lal Bahadur Singh on 16 September, 2014
Author: Anjana Mishra
Bench: Anjana Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.245 of 2014
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5530 of 2012
======================================================
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Water Resources
Development Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna
2. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Development Department,
Government Of Bihar, Patna
3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Department,
Government Of Bihar, Dehri
4. The Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Water Resources
Development Department, Buxar
5. The Treasury Officer, Buxar
.... .... Appellants
Versus
1. Lal Bahadur Singh Son Of Late Raghu Nath Singh Resident Of Mohalla-
Bangalitola, Ram Nagar Road, Chiraiyatand, Police Station- Jakkanpur,
District- Patna
.... .... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. A.N. Deo, S. C. 26
For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA
AND
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI
CAV ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA)
11 16-09-2014The appellants herein have assailed the order, dated 11.04.2013, passed in CWJC No. 5530 of 2012, by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the case of the writ petitioner-sole respondent herein has been allowed and the order, dated 27.10.2010, passed by the appellants herein, directing recovery of Rs. 51,882/- from the retiral dues of the writ petitioner-sole respondent herein, has Patna High Court LPA No.245 of 2014 (11) dt.16-09-2014 2 been quashed and a further direction has been issued to pay the balance amount of Rs. 32,023/- to the petitioner expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order.
2. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the State of Bihar has preferred the present appeal on the sole ground that the Resolution No. 14, dated 02.06.2006, issued by the State Government, with regard to payment of medical benefits to ailing employees, did not envisage granting of the reliefs which the learned Single Judge has granted.
3. The relevant facts and circumstances, which gave rise to the present dispute, may be set out in brief, as under:
(i) The writ petitioner-sole respondent herein, as an employee of the State Government, availed medical consultation in Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna, and was, on 29.08.2009, referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the AIIMS'). The writ petitioner-sole respondent herein was advised for a D.D.D. surgery by the doctors at AIIMS and an estimate of Rs. 1,25,000/- was given towards the said treatment. The writ petitioner-sole respondent herein, therefore, made, on 18.10.2009, an application, seeking medical advance, to the Principal Secretary, Water Patna High Court LPA No.245 of 2014 (11) dt.16-09-2014 3 Resources Department, Government of Bihar, who, upon consideration, sanctioned an amount of RS. 1,00,000/-
only vide Memo No. 1788, dated 30.10.2009. After availing treatment at AIIMS, the writ petitioner-sole respondent herein submitted a bill of Rs. 1,32,023/- only on 26.3.2010 and the said bill was forwarded to the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, vide Memo No. 367.
(ii) The writ petitioner-sole respondent herein superannuated from service with effect from 31.05.2010. On 27.10.2010, vide Memo No. 1440, issued vide letter No. 241, dated 12.10.2010, an order was issued by the Additional Secretary, Department of Water Resources, stating therein that a sum of Rs. 51,882/- be recovered from the retiral benefits of the concerned employee as vide letter No. 9248, dated 13.8.2010, the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, had stated that the writ petitioner-sole respondent herein was entitled to only a sum of Rs. 48,118/- towards expenses incurred over his medical treatment. The concerned authority, noting the fact that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- had been taken by the writ petitioner-sole respondent herein, as medical advance, accordingly directed that the remainder amount of Rs. 51,882/- be deducted, in one installment, from the retiral Patna High Court LPA No.245 of 2014 (11) dt.16-09-2014 4 benefits of the writ petitioner-sole respondent herein.
4. Being aggrieved by the order, dated 27.10.2010, aforementioned, the writ petitioner-sole respondent herein came to this Court. The respondents (I.e., appellants herein), in the writ petition, filed their counter affidavit stating therein that the impugned order had been passed considering the Resolution, dated 02.06.2006, issued by the Department of Health, Government of Bihar, whereunder a sum of Rs. 48,188/- only can be granted as reimbursement for implanting a pace maker. In the counter affidavit, a reference was also made to the Resolution, contained in letter No. 6414, dated 02.06.2010, of the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna.
5. We have heard Mr. A. N. Deo, learned Standing Counsel No. 26, for the appellants and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that the learned single Judge erred in granting relief to the writ petitioner-sole respondent herein as the order impugned had been passed after due consideration of the relevant resolutions, issued from time to time, and, especially, referred to Resolution no. 2059 (24)/Health, Patna, dated 27.5.1997, of the Department of Health and Patna High Court LPA No.245 of 2014 (11) dt.16-09-2014 5 Family Planning, Government of Bihar, which clearly indicates that only a sum of Rs. 38,000/- was admissible towards cost of pace maker and, in view of the aforementioned guidelines, it was not permissible to give to the writ petitioner-sole respondent herein any further amount as had been indicated therein.
7. We have perused the aforementioned Resolution of the year 1997. Our attention has also been drawn to another Resolution of the Department of Health and Family Planning, Government of Bihar, bearing Resolution No. 1070(14), dated 20.05.2006.
8. Under Clause 3(ii) of the Resolution, dated 20.05.2006, aforementioned, it has been mentioned that a State Government employee can avail medical benefits to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/-, but the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- would be sanctioned by the concerned Departmental Secretary in consultation with the Financial Advisor. Clause 3 (v) of the said Resolution further indicates that in case of treatment availed in any hospital, outside the State, recognized by the Government of Bihar, the concerned employee could avail an advance of 80 per cent of the estimated cost subject to a maximum of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
9. It appears from the facts of the case that the Patna High Court LPA No.245 of 2014 (11) dt.16-09-2014 6 writ petitioner-sole respondent herein had availed an advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- inasmuch as Annexure 3 shows that the amount, required for surgery, assessed by the Department of Cardiology, AIIMS, was Rs. 1,25,000/-.
10. The Resolution No. 1070 (14), dated 20.05.2006, which the appellants rely upon, is reproduced below:
"fcgkj ljdkj LokLF; ,oa i0 d0 foHkkx iVuk @ ladYi la0 1070 ¼14½ fnukad 20 ebZ & 2006@ izs'kd Jh vjfoUn dqekj flag] mi lfpo LokLF; foHkkx iVuk fo'k;%jkT; ljdkj ds dfeZ;ksa dh fpfdRlk dh Lohd`fr ,oa fpfdRlk O;; dh izfriwfrZ dh "kfDr;ksa dk izR;k;kstu A orZeku esa LokLF; foHkkx ds ifji= la0 & 24@,e 12&01@99 4286¼24½ fnukad 11-12-99 }kjk jkT; ljdkj ds lsoh oxZ dh jkT; ds vUnj ljdkjh vLirkyksa esa fpfdRlk esa gq, O;; :05000@& ls vf/kd dh izfriwfrZ ds ekeyksa esa izfriwfrZ dh Lohd`fr LokLF; ,oa i0 d0 foHkkx }kjk foRr foHkkx dh lgefr ls nh tkrh gS A bl O;oLFkk ls jkT; dfeZ;ksa dks izfriwfrZ dh jkf"k izkIr gksus esa izfdz;kRed foyEc dk lkeuk djuk iM+rk gS vkSj mUgsa vkfFkZd dfBukbZ Hkh gksrh gS A 2- blh izdkj jkT; ls ckgj jkT; dfeZ;ksa dks fpfdRlk gsrq fcgkj mipkj fu;ekoyh ds fu;e&26 ds }kjk ljdkj dks izkIr fo"ks'kkf/kdkj dk mi;ksx dj] Patna High Court LPA No.245 of 2014 (11) dt.16-09-2014 7 izkf/kd`r fpfdRld ,oa jkT; fpfdRlk Ik'kZn dh vuq"kalk ij LokLF; foHkkx }kjk foRr foHkkx dh lgefr ls ljdkjh vLirkyksa esa ;k jkT; ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr vLirkyksa ¼VkVk eseksfj;y vLirky] eqacbZ dSalj jksx ds fy, ,oa lh0,e0lh0 Hksyksj] xqnkZ jksx ds fy,½ esa fpfdRlk djkus dh Lohd`fr nh tkrh gS A fpfdRlksijkUr ljdkjh dfeZ;ksa ds fu;a=.k inkf/kdkjh ds ek/;e ls izfriwfrZ gsrq nkok izkIr gksus ij tkapksijkUr vuqekU; jkf"k dh izfriwfrZ dk jkT;kns"k foRr foHkkx dh lgefr izkIr dj LokLF; foHkkx }kjk fuxZr fd;k tkrk gS A mDr izfdz;k esa Hkh vR;f/kd le; yx tkrk gS rFkk jkf"k ds vHkko esa dfeZ;ksa ,oa muds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dh fpfdRlk ckf/kr gksrh gS A 3- mijksDr izfdz;k dks ljy cukus ds mn~ns"; ls bl lEcU/k esa lE;d fopkjksijkUr ljdkj }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd %&
(i) xx xx xx
(ii) jkT; ds vUnj ljdkjh vLirkyksa@fpfdRlk dsUnzksa@ jkT; ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr vLirkyksa esa djk;h x;h vUrokZlh fpfdRlk vkSj fu/kkZfjr jksxksa ds lac/a k esa ofgokZlh fpfdRlk ij 20001@& :Ik;s ls 2]00]000@& :Ik;s rd ds O;; dh izfriwfrZ dh "kfDr lacaf/kr ljdkjh lsod ds foHkkxh; lfpo dks gksxk A foHkkxh;
lfpo vkarfjd foRrh; lykgdkj ds ijke"kZ ls O;; dh izfriwfrZ laca/kh Lohd`fr nsaxs A nks yk[k ls mij ds izLrko esa lacaf/kr foHkkx }kjk foRr foHkkx dh lgefr ls fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sxk A
(iii) xx xx xx Patna High Court LPA No.245 of 2014 (11) dt.16-09-2014 8
(iv) xx xx xx
(v) jkT; ds ckgj vFkok ljdkjh vLirkyksa@ jkT; ljdkj }kjk vU; ekU;rk izkIr vLirkyksa esa vUrokZlh fpfdRlk ds fy;s lacaf/kr laLFkku ds izkDdyu ds vk/kkj ij 80 izfr"kr rd dh jkf"k] vf/kdre nks yk[k :Ik;s rd fpfdRlk vfxze vkarfjd foRrh; lykgkdkj ds ijke"kZ ls foHkkx ds lfpo }kjk Lohd`r fd;k tk;sxk A nks yk[k ls vf/kd fpfdRlk vfxze dh Lohd`fr foRr foHkkx dh lgefr ds Ik"pkr foHkkxh; lfpo }kjk nh tk;sxh A"
11. Close to the heels of Resolution No. 1070(14), Resolution No. 14/M 4-02/2002/482(14), dated 24.03.2006, reads as under:
"fcgkj ljdkj LokLF; ,oa i0 d0 foHkkx ladYi la0&14@,e 4&02@2002@482¼14½ iVuk] fnukad 24 ekpZ 2006 A isz'kd ,0 ds0 flag ljdkj ds mi lfpo ½ Hkkjr ds lafo/kku dh /kkjk 309 ds v/khu iznRr "kfDr;ksa dk mi;ksXk djrs gq, fcgkj ds jkT;iky] jkT; ljdkj ds lsoh oxZ ds mipkj rFkk vkS'kf/k;ksa dh vkiwfrZ ls lacaf/kr vf/klwpuk la0 865 ,y0 ,l0 th0 fnukad 2-10-47 }kjk vf/klwfpr fcgkj mipkj fu;ekoyh ds fu;e&1 dh fVIi.kh&12 ds ckn fVIi.kh&13 ds :Ik esa fuEukafdr la"kks/ku dk funs"k nsrs gS A la"kks/ku fu;e&1 dh fVIi.kh 12 ds ckn fVIi.kh&13 ds :Ik esa fuEukafdr tksM+h tk; %& fVIi.kh%& 13& jkT; ljdkj ds lsoh oxZ ljdkjh vLirkyksa ,oa ljdkj }kjk lEiksf'kr vLirkyksa ds vfrfjDr Patna High Court LPA No.245 of 2014 (11) dt.16-09-2014 9 lsUV~zy xoZesUV gsYFk Ldhe ¼lh0 th0 ,p0 ,l0½ ls ekU;rk izkIr vLirkyksa esa Hkh fpfdRlk izkIr djus ds gdnkj gkxs rFkk lh0 th0 ,p0 ,l0 ls ekU;rk izkIr vLirkyksa esa djk;h x;h fpfdRlk esa gq, O;; dk Hkqxrku lh0 th0 ,p0 ,l0 }kjk le; & le; ij fu/kkZfjr njksa ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk;sxk A ;g rkRdkfyd izHkko ls ykxw gksxk A"
12. On a combined reading of Resolution Nos. 1070 (14) and 14/M 4-02/2002/482(14) and Bihar Medical Attendance Rules, what transpires is that in terms of Resolution No. 14/M 4-02/2002 of the Department of Health and Family Planning, Government of Bihar, State Government employees, in addition to what was already available to them, would be entitled to receive yet another benefit inasmuch as further Note 13 has been inserted after Rule 1, wherein it has been stated that those, serving under the State Government, could avail the benefits of CGHS Scheme in any recognized hospital and the treatments, undertaken by them, would be guided by the various rates, which may be permissible under the Central Government Hospital Scheme as modified from time to time.
13. Thus, it can be well interpreted that the writ petitioner could have availed medical benefits within the limits permissible under the Central Government Hospital Patna High Court LPA No.245 of 2014 (11) dt.16-09-2014 10 Scheme.
14. We have also noted that the writ petitioner- sole respondent herein had submitted his application seeking advance, annexing to his said application a copy of the estimate given by the AIIMS, which shows that the said estimated sum of Rs. 1,32,023/- was as per the Central Government Hospital Scheme and the same was duly sanctioned to him by the competent authority.
15. It is apparent that the sole ground taken by the appellants herein for assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge is that the Resolution of the year 1997 restricts the hands of the State Government in granting medical benefits, which the writ petitioner-sole respondent herein had claimed, whereas the aforementioned two directives of the State of Bihar, in the subsequent years, had not been taken note of, while passing the order directing recovery of the excess amount from the pension of the retired employee concerned.
16. It is evident from the two Resolutions, referred to above by us, that the writ petitioner could have well availed the benefit of Central Government Health Scheme with regard to payment of cost of pace maker, but the State authorities have sanctioned only Rs. 38,000/- as per the earlier Resolutions, apparently ignoring the Patna High Court LPA No.245 of 2014 (11) dt.16-09-2014 11 subsequent rules, and causing, thus, prejudice to the claim of the writ petitioner.
17. A perusal of the letter, dated 02.06.2006, of the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, clearly reveals that the medical expenditure certificate, given by the AIIMS, was examined by a three member Committee along with a visiting doctor member, and the said Committee had expressed its satisfaction, regarding its admissibility and genuineness. We have also determined that the State Government is fully authorized to give advance to the extent of 80 per cent of the estimated expenditure for a surgery and, considering the estimate, issued by the AIIMS, which was to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/-, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was sanctioned as medical advance to the writ petitioner-sole respondent herein which was in consonance with the said criteria. Since the expenditure certificate, duly assessed by the AIIMS, New Delhi, was also found to be in tune with the medical expenditure claimed by the writ petitioner-sole respondent herein, i.e. Rs. 1,32,023/-, and for the reason that the concerned Departmental Secretary is fully empowered to sanction the amount of medical relief/reimbursement to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-, we also consider it expedient and in the interest of justice that the Patna High Court LPA No.245 of 2014 (11) dt.16-09-2014 12 writ petitioner-sole respondent herein be granted the aforementioned relief as has been directed by the learned single Judge in the impugned order with valid reasons assigned therefor.
18. After considering the matter in its entirety, we, thus, find and hold that the impugned order, issued against the writ petitioner-sole respondent herein, was fit to be set aside and the writ petitioner-sole respondent herein is fully entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs. 32,023/- over and above the advance already extended to him upon due consideration and sanction by the Departmental Secretary.
19. In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(Anjana Mishra, J.)
I. A. Ansari, J.: I agree.
(I. A. Ansari, J.)
Snkumar/Anand
U √ T X