2008 Supreme(SC) 579

2008(2) Supreme 821
Supreme Court of india
S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
State of Karnataka and another — Petitioners
versus
Sri R. Vivekananda Swamy — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 2336 of 2008
Decided on : 01-04-2008

Important Point
Claim for reimbursement must be made only in Terms of the Rules and not dehors the same.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 309 — Karnataka Government Servants’ (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1963 — Medical Benefit Rules applicable in the State of Karnataka as also in the State of Rajasthan- Interpretation and/or application of- Rules regarding reimbursement of medical claim of an employee when he obtains treatment from a hospital of his choice can be made limited — Such a rule furthermore having been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India constitutes conditions of service in terms whereof on the one hand the employee would be granted facility of medical aid free of cost from the recognized government hospitals and on the other he, at his option, may get himself treated from other recognized hospitals/institutions subject of course to the conditions that the reimbursement by the State therefor would be limited. (Para 18)

       Karnataka Government Servants’ (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1963 — Respondent in Karnataka case was an officer working in the Office of the Department of Commercial Taxes- He underwent ‘Coronary Artery’ Bypass Surgery in Wockhardt Hospital and Heart Institute — A sum of Rs. 1,50,600/- was said to have been incurred by him by way of medical expenses — He claimed re-imbursement t hereof — The State of Karnataka sanctioned and reimbursed a sum of Rs. 39,207/-. Writ petition — Allowed by Karnataka High Court — Appeal — In Karnataka case, it was necessary to take into consideration provisions of Rule 31 of 1963 Rules which confers an unequivocal power of relaxation to the authorised authorities specified therein — A public authority may exercise its power of relaxation only where there exists a provision therfor — However, while exercising such a power, the authority must act judiciously keeping in mind purport and object thereof-Considerations therefor, although may not partake a mathematical exactable but should always be fair and reasonable — Although it may not be possible for an employee to enforce a purported right on the premise that another person had obtained reimbursement for a similar kind of treatment, ordinarily fair procedure envisages a broad similarity — If any person has been shown any undue favour, by itself may not be a ground to favour another but when such a contention is raised, the State should be able to demonstrate a fair treatment — It is possible to draw a distinction on the basis of several factors, emergent situation being one of them — So viewed, held that State of Karnataka had not acted arbitrarily. (Paras 19, 20)

       (2006) 10 SCC 261, (2006) 8 SCC 671 — Relied upon.

       Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 — Rajasthan case, related to a Judicial officer who had been suffering from some kidney problems and Respondent was his mother — In the month of May, 2003 he came to Delhi and got himself admitted and treated in Batra Hospital — He, therefore, prayed for reimbursement of his medical expenses incurred on that occasion also — Indisputably, however, the Principal and Controller, SMS Medical College and Hospital, on or about 5th July, 2003, referred him to AIIMS — Allegedly in the reference order it was mentioned that the same was subject to medical expenses with a ceiling of Rs.10,000/- only — Respondents son obtained treatment in the Batra Hospital from 4th July to 29th July, 2003 — He unfortunately breathed his last on 7th November, 2003 — Respondent claimed medical reimbursement to the tune of Rs.6,52,148/- with interest — Only a sum of Rs.75,000/- was, however, sanctioned by the State of Rajasthan as being admissible, purported to be in terms of the Rules — Writ petition — Allowed by High Court of Rajasthan — Appeal — So far as Rajasthan case is concerned unlike State of Karnataka there is no provision for exemption for payment of portion of the amount of bill which would be corresponding to the costs which would have been otherwise incurred by the employee in obtaining treatment from AIIMS — It was furthermore evident that ex-post facto sanction had been granted — The State did not disclose the basis for such grant — The grant was not dehors the Rules- Respondents son indisputably obtained treatment at Batra Hospital from time to time-He being a judicial officer, the bills submitted by him had been verified by the Registrar of the High Court-Recommendations had also been made by the High Court for reimbursement of the said bills — In order to do complete justice to the parties, order passed directing State of Rajasthan to pay balance amounts to the Respondent — Appeals disposed of. (Paras 27 to 29)

       Facts of the Case :

       1.Interpretation and/or application of Medical Benefit Rules applicable in the State of Karnataka as also in the State of Rajasthan was in question in present appeals which arose out of judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 10942 of 2005 and that of the judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6502 of 2004 respectively.

       Findings of the Court :

       Rules regarding reimbursement of medical claim of an employee when he obtains treatment from a hospital of his choice can be made limited.Such a rule furthermore having been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India constitutes conditions of service in terms whereof on the one hand the employee would be granted facility of medical aid free of cost from the recognized government hospitals and on the other he, at his option, may get himself treated from other recognized hospitals/institutions subject of course to the conditions that the reimbursement by the State therefor would be limited.

       Result : Appeals disposed of.