Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2164
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
RS Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others - Respondents
W.P.(C) 6093 of 2012
Decided on : 13-04-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik and Ms. Aliza Alam, Advs.
A retired government employee is entitled to medical reimbursement irrespective of membership in the health scheme, and the state has a constitutional obligation to bear medical expenses of government employees.
Headnote:
Medical Reimbursement - Government Employee - Kishan Chand v. Govt. of NCT, WP(C) 889/2007, S.K. Sharma v. UOI, Mohinder Pal v. UOI, Milap Sigh v. UOI, Ran deep Kumar Rana v. UOI, P.N. Chopra v. UOI, V.K. Gupta v. Union of India, Narender Pal Sigh v. Union of India - The court discussed various judgments including Kishan Chand v. Govt. of NCT and S.K. Sharma v. UOI, emphasizing that a retired government employee is entitled to medical reimbursement irrespective of membership in the health scheme. The court highlighted the constitutional obligation of the state to bear medical expenses of government employees during and after their service. The judgment in the present case directed the respondent to reimburse the petitioner's medical expenses with interest and imposed additional costs for delay.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired government employee, sought reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for emergency treatment. The Director of Health Services rejected the request on the ground of non-membership in the health scheme. The court considered the petitioner's entitlement to reimbursement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, despite not being a member of the health scheme, was entitled to medical reimbursement based on established legal principles and previous judgments.
Issues: The issue revolved around the entitlement of a retired government employee to medical reimbursement despite not being a member of the health scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a retired government employee is entitled to medical reimbursement irrespective of membership in the health scheme, emphasizing the state's constitutional obligation to bear medical expenses of government employees.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondent to reimburse the petitioner's medical expenses with interest and imposed additional costs for delay.
JUDGMENT :
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks the following prayer:—
“(i) quash the order dated 17.02.2012 and 30.08.2012 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of medical bills and issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the medical claim of the Petitioner with interest on delayed payment and costs.
ii) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The facts germane in the present are stated as under:—
(i) The petitioner joined the service of Delhi Administration as an Agricultural Assistant in the year 1957 and became the officer of Dhani Civil Services and thereafter was posted to different posts under the Delhi Administration.
(ii) On 31.10.1992 petitioner retired on completion of age of superannuation while working as District Excise Officer.
(iii) Petitioner had applied for services of a medical facility card in the year 1997 which was granted to him by the Excise Department. In the year 1997 and 2003, the petitioner fell ill and submitted application for his reimbursement of medical claim to the department and at that point of time were cleared.
(iv) Sometime in the year 2011 petitioner went to Lucknow and suddenly fell seriously ill and was admitted to Army Hospital for emergency treatment of Heart ailment i.e. Anterior Wall Myocardial Infraction. Subsequently, after the initial treatment, the petitioner was discharged from the Army Hospital on 03.08.2011. It is the submission of the petitioner that he incurred a sum of Rs. 8205/- for the treatment at Army Hospital at Lucknow.
(v) Subsequently, for the further treatment, the petitioner was shifted from Lucknow to National Heart Institute, East of Kailash, New Delhi and was admitted for further emergency treatment of heart ailment. Subsequently, he was discharged from the National Heart Institute after paying a sum of Rs. 2,67,150/- towards treatment and medicines.
(vi) On 23.09.2011 the petitioner submitted the medical bills to the Directorate of Health Services for reimbursement of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,75,355/- for the treatment in the Lucknow as well as in Delhi.
(vii) However, by the communication dated 17.02.2012 the Director of Health Services rejected the request of the reimbursement of the two bills on the ground that the petitioner was not the member of the Delhi Govt. Employees Health Scheme (DGEHS) and as such was not eligible for the reimbursement.
(viii) In order to overcome to the lacuna, the petitioner applied for a fresh medical card on 27.03.2012 after making the payment of Rs. 39,000/- as one time charge for life.
(ix) Subsequently, on 14.08.2012 the petitioner resubmitted the bills to the Directorate of Health Services for reimbursement of the aforesaid amount. Having not received any response thereto, the present writ petition was filed challenging the aforesaid decision.
3. Mr. Nitesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that petitioner was not eligible at that particular point of time since he was not a member Delhi Govt. Employees Health Scheme (DGEHS) and therefore there was no question of any entitlement for reimbursement. However, Mr. Singh learned counsel very fairly submitted and handed over a copy of judgment of this Court in Ram Kumar Kaushik v. Govt. of NCT Of Delhi bearing W.P.(C) 7978/2012 decided on 04.03.2016 whereby on similar facts, basing on the judgment of this Court in Kishan Chand v. Govt. of N.C.T. delivered on 12.03.2010, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondent therein to reimburse the medical expenses for the treatment which the petitioner, in that case, had undergone.
4. This Court has considered the facts of the present case as submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the submission rendered by Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
5. Having regard to the fact that the issue raised in the pres
