Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Lal Grover vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 April, 2013
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 6935 of 2013
Date of Decision: 02.04.2013
Krishan Lal Grover ......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:- Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
***
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J (ORAL).
The petitioner is a retired Government employee. In the month of July, 2011, the petitioner along with his wife had gone abroad to visit his son. On 04.10.2011, the petitioner's wife had been treated on account of a heart condition in a hospital at Sydney, Australia, whereby the procedure of stenting was performed to save her life. On returning to India, petitioner submitted bills for reimbursement of the amount incurred on the treatment of his wife abroad to an extent of `4,77,736.84/-. Such claim had been rejected in the light of memo dated 04.02.2013 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak.
The present writ petition has been filed impugning the memo dated 04.02.2013. Perusal of the impugned memo would reveal that the sole basis for not entertaining the medical bills submitted by the petitioner pertaining to the treatment of his wife is that the treatment had been undergone abroad and the instructions issued by the State Government do not provide for reimbursement of the same.
Counsel for the petitioner would argue that even if the actual amount claimed is not reimbursed, petitioner would be vested with a right for the medical bills to be reimbursed at PGI/AIIMS rate. Towards such contention, counsel would place reliance upon judgment dated 04.03.2009 CWP No. 6935 of 2013 -2- in CWP No. 7757 of 2009 titled as Hawa Singh Hooda Versus Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam and another 2009 (2) SLR 716.
Prima facie, I find that the argument raised by the petitioner has merit. However, the scope of the present writ petition is not for the medical bills submitted by the petitioner as regards treatment of his wife undergone abroad to be reimbursed at PGI/AIIMS rate. On the other hand, the present writ petition has been filed impugning the memo dated 04.02.2013 (Annexure P-2), whereby the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of the actual expenditure incurred upon the treatment of the wife has been rejected.
Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent/competent authority for raising a claim towards medical reimbursement of the expenses incurred on the wife of the petitioner as per PGI/AIIMS rate. In the eventuality of any such claim being raised, it shall be obligatory for the respondent/competent authority to consider the same and to take a final decision thereupon within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of such claim. Suffice to say that while taking any final decision in the matter the judgment passed by this Court in Hawa Singh Hooda (supra) shall be kept in mind.
Petition disposed of.
April 02, 2013 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) Divyanshi JUDGE