Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Moti Chand Sogani vs State Of Raj And Anr on 7 December, 2016
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9749/2008
Moti Chand Sogani s/o Late Shri Harak Chand Sogani aged
about 75 years, r/o A-11, Shrijee Nagar, Durgapura, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department
and Member Secretary Board of Trustees Rajasthan State
Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme, Government of
Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
__________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Akhil Simlote.
For Respondents : Mr. Rishipal Agarwal.
__________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Order 07/12/2016 The petitioner was engaged as a Personal Assistant with Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan and demitted his office after superannuation on 31.03.1994. He was issued P.P.O./C.P.F. No.116516. The petitioner and his family members are members of medical concession scheme of the government of Rajasthan for life time--referable to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules 1970 2 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1970'). In the night intervening 02/03.07.2005, the petitioner suffered a paralytic attack on the right side of the body and also suffered brain hemorrhage. He was immediately taken to the Sawai Man Singh Hospital by his wife alongwith the neighbors. No medical aid being made available at the said hospital despite three hours wait while the petitioner's condition deteriorated, his wife in her wisdom took a decision to shift the petitioner to Santokba Durlabji Memorial Hospital (SDMH), Jaipur a mere kilometer away from the SMS Hospital. The petitioner was immediately attended to at SDMH and remained an indoor patient between 03.07.2005 to 27.07.2005. He has since then discharged albeit not fully recovered and still continues to suffer consequences of a paralytic attack including being unable to even a hold pen to sign. He has in fact put his thumb impression on the present writ petition.
Being entitled to medical reimbursement as a government retiree under the Rules of 1970, the petitioner sought reimbursement of Rs.76,606.90/- expanded at SDMH during his treatment. Albeit application was submitted in the prescribed form alongwith supporting documents, it was rejected vide the impugned order dated 29.07.2008 on the ground that SDMH was neither a government hospital nor a Government approved hospital under the Rules of 1970 and thus the petitioner dis- 3 entitled to any reimbursement.
Hence, this petition.
The petitioner has pitched his case on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Harbir Kaur versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in RLR 2004 (3) 594, wherein it has been held that Rule 7 of the Rules of 1970 does not limit the right of a retiree for full reimbursement where medical treatment is obtained by him outside State hospitals or hospitals approved by the State Government in life threatening situation warranting immediate medical intervention. It has been asserted that if such a view is not be taken, qua the government retirees entitled to medical reimbursement under the Rules of 1970 it would be in the crosshairs of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Akhil Similte appearing for the petitioner has however in the course of hearing fairly pointed out that since the judgment of this Court in Smt. Harbir Kaur (supra), this Court has consistently taken a diluted view on the right to medical reimbursement by the Government servants in service or as retirees as in the case of Man Singh and Anr. Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors., (S.B.C.W.P. No.7712/2007), decided on 23.01.2008 and also in the case of Raj Kumar Jain versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No.7974/2015), decided on 10.08.2016. Right to reimbursement under the Rules of 1970 where the 4 Government servant takes medical treatment outside Government Hospitals/approved hospitals has been upheld with the caveat that the reimbursement would be limited in such situations to the monetary value of packages for similar treatment/procedure in Government Hospitals/ Government approved hospitals under the Rules of 1970. It has been pointed out that in view of the extant legal position obtaining with regard to the reimbursement interalia to government retirees the petitioner is entitled to medical reimbursement for treatment undergone at SDMH at par with packages as applicable for similar treatment in approved hospital/SMS Hospital and other Government Hospital.
Mr. Rishipal Agarwal appearing for the respondents has admitted that the application of the petitioner in the prescribed form for reimbursement of Rs.76,606.90/- for the treatment of the paralytic attack has been received by the concerned department. He has however opposed the writ petition on the ground that SDMH not being at the relevant time an approved hospital under the Rules of 1970, the petitioner cannot be entitled to reimbursement under the Rules of 1970.
Heard. Considered.
It cannot be disputed that the presently obtaining and current legal position under the judgments of this Court is that if government servants in service or retired owes avail medical 5 treatment in urgent situations in the hospitals not approved by the State Government under the Rules of 1970 or at the State Government Hospitals, they would be entitled to reimbursement albeit limited as per packages for similar treatment at the State Hospitals/Hospitals approved by the State Government--no doubt on appropriate verification being made.
In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of directing that the medical bills of the petitioner be reimbursed at the rate prescribed at the relevant time for similar treatment at SMS Hospital Jaipur on requisite verifications being made. The reimbursement as then found due, be made within a period of 6 weeks from today failing which interest on the amount due shall be paid @ 6% p.a. (ALOK SHARMA), J R.Vaishnav.
37.