Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 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.

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 subsequent rules, and causing, thus, prejudice to the claim of the writ petitioner.