Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sbcwp No.6512/13 - Sumer Singh ... vs . Union Of India & Ors. on 15 April, 2014
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
SBCWP No.6512/13 - Sumer Singh Rajpurohit vs. Union of India & ors.
Order dt:15/4/2014
1/4
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6512/2013
(Sumer Singh Rajpurohit vs. Union of India & Ors.)
DATE OF ORDER : 15/4/2014
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioner.
Mr. M.R.Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bhavit Sharma, for the respondent.
1. The petitioner is an employee of respondent - Oil India Ltd. at Jodhpur. The present writ petition pertains to the claim of reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in relation to the treatment of his wife Smt. Kamla Rajpurohit for hypertrichosis (growing of hair over chin, neck & side cheeks). According to the petitioner, after consulting Dr. Rajeev Khullar and Dr. C.S.Bhargava locally at Jodhpur, the petitioner was advised to take such treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi and for which treatment the petitioner has incurred large amount and as per the relevant rules applicable to the respondent Company, the petitioner has made the claim for reimbursement for such medical expenses.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit submitted that upto the year 2006, the respondent Company has made reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for treatment of his wife of approximately Rs.10 lacs, however, after that no such reimbursement has been made to the petitioner and, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed for seeking such reimbursement from the respondent Company from 11/6/2007 and to quash the Office Order dated 11/3/2013 (Annex.35) rejecting the petitioner's application to visit AIIMS, New Delhi for SBCWP No.6512/13 - Sumer Singh Rajpurohit vs. Union of India & ors.
Order dt:15/4/2014 2/4 follow-up check-up of his wife and the petitioner has further claimed compensation for the harassment for not granting permission to leave the Head Quarter for treatment of his wife.
3. The respondent Company has filed a detailed reply to the writ petition to which a detailed counter rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner and it appears from the said bulky record of rejoinder running into 400 pages or so but the grievance of the petitioner is only that the respondent Company has not yet decided his claim for reimbursement of medical expenses in accordance with the relevant rules applicable to the respondent Oil India Ltd. Company.
4. On the other hand, Mr. M.R.Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bhavit Sharma appearing for the respondent Company submitted that the petitioner has not applied for leaving the Headquarters in accordance with the Rules of the Company and the petitioner is not entitled for the claim made by him for treatment of his wife, who herself is a Govt. School Teacher. However, each claim depends upon determination of questions of facts in accordance with law and relevant medical attendance rules applicable to the respondent company. Mr. M.R.Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, however, fairly submitted that the competent authority will provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and will decide the pending claims of the petitioner by a speaking order. He also submitted that the writ petition, at this stage, is premature and, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned counsels and upon perusal of the SBCWP No.6512/13 - Sumer Singh Rajpurohit vs. Union of India & ors.
Order dt:15/4/2014 3/4 bulky record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no mandamus direction can straightway be issued to the respondent Company to make good the entire medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for treatment of his wife for the aforesaid disease. It will naturally depend upon the Medical Attendance Rules applicable to the respondent Company including the Office Order dated 11/3/2013, relied upon by the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to appear before the concerned authority and satisfy that the claim of reimbursement of medical expenses made by him is in accord with the relevant Medical Attendance Rules and the competent authority is expected to decide the said claim of the petitioner by a speaking order. Unless such detailed speaking order is passed either accepting, partly allowing or rejecting the claim of the petitioner with regard to treatment of his wife at AIIMS, New Delhi and whether such treatment is locally available at Jodhpur or not, and such questions of facts are first decided by the competent authority, no such direction can be issued to the respondent Company while dealing with the present writ petition, which is premature at this stage.
6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty and direction to the petitioner to approach the respondent Nos. 3 - The Director (HR & BD), Oil India Limited, Noida and respondent no.4 - The Group General Manager (RP), Oil India Limited, Jodhpur, to get his claim for reimbursement of medical expenses for treatment of his wife decided and the said authorities are directed to decide the representation/claim of the petitioner locally at the first instance and, SBCWP No.6512/13 - Sumer Singh Rajpurohit vs. Union of India & ors.
Order dt:15/4/2014 4/4 thereafter, at the Director's level at Noida, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period three months from today. No costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.
(DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J.
item no.89 baweja/-