Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
T. Gopalakrishna Murthi vs State Of A.P. And Another on 25 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(5)ALD750, 2000(5)ALT721
ORDER Rama Reddi, J.
1. The petitioner who was a Judicial Officer of the rank of District and Sessions Judge, has filed this writ petition questioning the order issued by the G.O. Rt.1563, Law, dated 9-11-1998 and seeks for a direction to sanction the entire amount of Rs.1,59,480/-
claimed by him towards medical reimbursement after deducting the amount of Rs.40,000/- sanctioned under the impugned G.O. There is a further prayer to sanction the balance amount of Rs.6,097/-
out of Rs.27,758/- claimed by him for treatment at Care Hospital, Hyderabad on the earlier occasion.
2. The petitioner who fell ill during 1997-98 on account of triple vessel coronary artery disease and L.V. dysfunction was admitted into Madras Medical Mission Hospital in an emergent condition. He was hospitalised from 17-1-1998 to 29-1-1998 and bypass surgery was performed as seen from the Certificate issued by the Madras Medical Mission Hospital. The bills and certificate filed by him show that he paid charges of Rs. 1,59,480/- out of which the bypass surgery charge had come to Rs.1,45,000/-. The High Court recommended sanction of the amount as a special case. By the impugned G.O., the Government accorded sanction in relaxation of the rules/orders on the subject for reimbursement to the extent of Rs.50,000/- only with a cut of 20%. In other words, the sum of Rs.40,000/- only was sanctioned. Aggrieved by the disallowance of the remaining amount, the present writ petition is filed.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Secretary to Government, Law Department, it is stated that by G.O. Ms. No. 184, Health and Medical, dated 2-4-1992, the Government raised the limit of maximum reimbursable amount on account of medical treatment undergone by the Government employees in a private hospital which is not recognised as a referral hospital from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- with 20% cut and accordingly, the G.O. was issued sanctioning the said amount. It is contended that there is no provision for 100% reimbursement for the expenses incurred by the retired District Judges for treatment in a private hospital.
4. On the suggestion of the petitioner, we nominated Sri E. Manohar, senior advocate to assist the Court. We appreciate his gesture in responding to the Court's request and apprising the Court of the legal position.
5. Let us first see the rule position. The State Government in exercise of its executive power, framed the Rules entitled "Andhra Pradesh integrated Medical Attendance Rules". These rules apply to those who are entitled to medical attendance under the All India Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1954 and also to the A.P. State Higher Judicial Officers who are to be treated on par with IAS and IPS Officers (but only to the extent to which they are not inconsistent with these rules i.e., A.P. IMA Rules). Rule 18 of the said Rules lays down that Rule 15 will apply for the purpose of 'medical attendance' to the Officers of the Indian Administrative and Police Services and their families and Officers of the A.P. State Higher Judicial Services and their families. The Note to Rule 18 clarifies that the Officers of the A.P. State Higher Judicial Services will be treated on par with the members of the Indian Administrative and Police Services. Rule 15 provides for medical attendance for the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and a Minister. The said rule lays down that these dignitaries will be entitled for medical treatment and attendance on the same terms and conditions that are applicable to the Officers of IAS under All India Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1954. Amongst the persons who are entitled to free medical treatment, retired pensioners are included under Rule 6 of APIMA Rules.
6. The Government has been issuing G.Os. from time to time to enable the Government employees/retired employees and their dependants to undergo treatment in recognised private hospitals within the outside the State. The ceiling limit of Rs.50,000/- was fixed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.184 (Medical and Health) Department, dated 2-4-1992. In G.O. Ms. No.38 (M&H) Department, dated 23-1-1996, the Government recognised certain Private Hospitals within and outside the State for treatment to the Government employees, retired employees and their dependants. Amongst the Private Hospitals outside the State, the Madras Medical Mission Hospital has not been specified. Under the said G.O., the recognised Private Hospitals shall be regarded as referral hospitals and the reference has to be made by the Director, NIMS, Hyderabad and SVIMS, Tirupathi. However, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 175 (M and H) Department, dated 28-5-1997 dispensing with the procedure of referral. It was laid down in paragraph 4 of the G.O. thus:
"After careful consideration of this issue in consultation with the Director of Medical Education, the Government have decided to permit employees both serving and retired and also to their dependants, to secure treatment in the Private Hospitals recognised in the Government Orders 1st and 2nd read above, when the case is serious which required immediate treatment and there is no sufficient time to get referral letter from Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad/Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Science, Tirupathi. All the competent authorities are therefore permitted to sanction reimbursement of Medical expenses for the treatment in Private Hospitals recognised in the Government Orders 1st and 2nd read above after satisfying themselves that the patient was admitted in the hospital in a very serious condition and it was an emergency case and there was no sufficient time to obtain referral letter from Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad/Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupathi, if necessary after obtaining a certificate from the hospital to that effect and after obtaining copy of the case sheet. In all such cases of the treatment without referral letter, a 20% cut has to be imposed on the eligible amount after getting the bills scrutinised by the Director of Medical Education, Hyderabad."
7. The case of the petitioner does not fall within the sweep and ambit of the Rules and G.Os., issued by the State Government providing for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for treatment in recognized Private Hospitals. As already noted, the Madras Medical Mission Hospital is not in the list of recognised Private Hospitals. That is why the State Government has by the impugned G.O., dated 9-11-1998 relaxed the Rules/Orders on the subject. The State Government was obviously satisfied with the immediate need for treatment and surgery at the Madras Medical Mission Hospital which is undoubtedly a specialised hospital of repute. The fact that the heart condition of the petitioner needed emergent treatment by way of by-pass surgery cannot be and has not been denied. The background in which the petitioner had to consult the specialist in Madras Medical Mission Hospital and the circumstances in which he was admitted into the hospital on 17-1-1998 have been set out in detail in the affidavit and we have no reason to think that the averments made therein are incorrect. The question then is whether the retired Judicial Officer who is entitled to be treated on par with the All India Service Officer should be denied the reimbursement to the full extent or to a substantial extent by applying the ceiling limit of Rs.50,000/-minus 20%.
8. In order to substantiate his contentions, the petitioner (party-in-person) made an attempt to rely on the observations made by the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association case, AIR 1993 SC 2493. The Supreme Court pointed out at paragraph 4 that the Judicial Service of the State cannot be compared to the administrative executive. It was stressed that the members of the Judiciary exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State and therefore the parity should be between the political executive, the Legislators and the Judges and not between the Judges and the administrative executive. It was also observed that under the Constitution, the Judiciary is above the administrative executive and any attempt to place it on par with the administrative executive has to be discouraged. We do not think that these observations made by the Supreme Court in the context of the superannuation age of the Judicial Officers could be of real help to the petitioner who is a retired Judicial Officer. It is seen from Rule 18 of the Integrated Medical Attendance Rules, 1972 that the members of the A.P. State Higher Judicial Service as well as the members of IAS and IPS are placed on the same footing as far as medical attendance is concerned. At the same time, the political executive, viz., the Minister or the Speaker of the Assembly are governed by the same Rules which are applicable to the IAS Officers. That means, the All India Service (Medical Attendances) Rules, 1954 will be applicable as much to a Minister of the State as to the members of the IAS and A.P. State Higher Judicial Service unless there is anything contrary in the A.P. Integrated Medical Attendance Rules, 1972. In that sense, the parity is maintained. It is therefore not necessary to examine further whether the observations of the Supreme Court could be pressed into service by the petilioner at all. The petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in . We do not think that the said decision provides any precedential support to the petitioner going by the fact situation and the ratio therein.
9. That takes us to the next question whether the case of the petitioner could be dealt with under any of the provisions of All India Service (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1954. The Rule which is of great relevance in the context of the present controversy is Rule 14. which is extracted below:
14, Saving :--Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to-
(i) entitle a member of the service to reimbursement of any cost incurred in respect of medical services obtained by him, or to travelling allowance for any journey performed by him otherwise than as expressly provided in these rules, or X X X X X
(ii) prevent the Government from granting to a member of the service, or to a member of the family of a member of the Service any concession relating to medical treatment or attendance or travelling allowance for any journey performed by him which is not authorised by these rules."
10. No doubt, clause (ii) of Rule 14 is an enabling provision. The concession cannot be claimed as a matter of right. But when the circumstances warrant application of enabling provision, the Government should not fail in its duty to extend the concession. The concession or the power of relaxation conferred on the Government has to be necessarily exercised when it could be reasonably said on application of objective standards that there is enough justification to extend the concession. The Government cannot act according to its whims and fancies in granting or rejecting the concession. The genuineness of the claim of the retired Officer, the circumstances in which the treatment was undergone, the hardship that would be caused if the relaxation is denied and the decision taken by the Government in similar cases and other relevant considerations should serve as guidelines and govern the exercise of power.
11. Viewed from this angle, the case of the petitioner herein prima facie, requires reconsideration by the Government. The Government itself taking into account the recommendation of the High Court considered it a fit case to relax the rules, orders on the subject by sanctioning the expenditure incurred in the course of treatment at a non-recognised private hospital. At the same time, the Government did not go further to relax the ceiling limit of Rs.50,000/- thereby leaving a deficit of nearly one lakh of rupees to be borne by the retired Judicial Officer. Undoubtedly, it would be beyond his means to meet such heavy expenditure from his pocket. It would be unfair and unreasonable to place a retired Judicial Officer in a hapless and helpless condition in meeting the genuine medical expenses which he incurred. The nature of ailment and the treatment which it required is such that a sum of Rs.50,000/-(minus the cut) will not be an adequate recompense. A retired Officer cannot be left in a predicament to meet the heavy medical expenditure for undergoing the treatment for an ailment of serious nature. It is exactly to meet a situation like this, the saving provision embodied in clause (ii) of Rule 14 has been framed. In the instant case, prima facie, we find no apparent justification for limiting the sanction to Rs.40,000/-. The Government was content with partly relaxing the rule and did not go further to extend the concession without appreciating the relevant facts and circumstances. As already observed, the discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously without due regard to the various guiding factors indicated above. We are therefore of the view that the impugned G.O., insofar as it restricted the sanction of the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of the medical expenses only to Rs.40,000/- is illegal and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the G.O. and direct fresh consideration of the petitioner's case in the light of the observations made above. If it is found necessary to enforce the cut of 20% on par with other cases, nothing in this judgment precludes the Government from doing so, though it is not suggested that the Government should necessarily enforce the cut of 20%. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.