Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Binod Kumar Lal – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
W.P. (S) No. 3331 of 2019
Decided On : 20-01-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Petition for quashing letter whereby, claim of petitioner for medical and travelling allowances has been turned down on ground that medical allowance is not admissible in case of being outdoor patient - Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing those rejection orders and for direction to respondents for payment of medical bill and rest of travelling allowances - Respondent-State submits that in view of Scheme, outdoor patients are not entitled for medical reimbursement - They are entitled for travelling allowance only and travelling allowance in favour of petitioner has already been settled - She further submits that name of institutions are disclosed i.e. with regard to indoor patient and it is not for outdoor patient – Held, Right to health is integral to right to life - Government has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities - Fundamental right to life which is most precious human right and which forms ark of all other rights must therefore be interpreted in a broad and expansive spirit so as to invest it with significance and vitality which may endure for years to come and enhance the dignity of the individual and the worth of the human person - Court comes to a conclusion that there is no embargo in releasing medical allowance and travelling allowance to petitioner in view of Scheme, filed by respondent-State. Clause 2 of said Scheme is very clear that for treatment outside State in the empanelled hospitals, employees are entitled for medical reimbursement as well as travelling allowance - Writ petition allowed.
ORDER :
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Heard, Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. S.C.-III appearing for the respondent-State.
2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit.
3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the letter dated 07.02.2017 and letter dated 09.04.2019, contained in Annexures 9 and 12 respectively, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for medical and travelling allowances has been turned down on the ground that medical allowance is not admissible in case of being outdoor patient. The further prayer is made for direction to the respondents to pay the medical and travelling allowances to the petitioner for the period since 10.08.2010 to 21.08.2010, 17.10.2010 to 03.11.2010, 06.04.2011 to 08.04.2011, 15.09.2012 to 19.09.2012 and 04.09.2013 to 06.09.2013.
4. The petitioner was appointed as Secretariat Assistant in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi. He submitted his joining on 18.08.1984. The petitioner was confirmed in service on 18.08.1986. The petitioner passed the departmental examination in the year 1988 and 1990 respectively. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Section Officer in the office of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Ranchi on 01.07.2008. He was further promoted to the post of Under Secretary on 15.05.2012 and to the post of Deputy Secretary on 21.03.2015 in the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and to the post of Joint Secretary on 21.04.2016 in the Industry, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. He retired from the said post on 30.04.2016. While the petitioner was posted as Section Officer in the office of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Ranchi, her daughter namely Ms. Vandana Lal faced eye vision problem and she was examined in the Eye Department of Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi on 28.07.2010. She was referred for proper treatment either at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi or at Shankar Netralaya, Chennai by the RIMS and by the Medical Board of the State Government at RIMS, Ranchi. The said recommendation of the RIMS and the Medical Board of the State Government are annexed as Annexure-1 Series to the writ petition. The petitioner took her daughter to Shankar Netralaya, Chennai for her higher treatment from 10.08.2010 to 21.08.2010. The said treatment was followed by a second round of treatment from 17.10.2010 to 03.11.2010. The second round of treatment was done after prior information to the Department, for which, approval was issued post facto vide letter dated 30.03.2011, wherein, it was indicated that travelling and medical allowances are payable for to and fro along with one attendant. The further treatment was done from 06.04.2011 to 08.04.2011, since 15.09.2012 to 19.09.2012 and since 04.09.2013 to 06.09.2013 in the Shankar Netralaya, Chennai. The document annexed as Annexure-3 Series suggests that the daughter of the petitioner was suffering from acute vision problem. The third round of trip of such treatment was from 06.04.2011 to 08.04.2011. The petitioner informed the department by way of filing representation dated 01.04.2011. The fourth round of trip of such treatment was from 15.09.2012 to 19.09.2012, which was also informed to the department by the petitioner vide representation dated 05.09.2012. The fifth round of trip of such treatment was from 04.09.2013 to 06.09.2013, which was also informed to the department by the petitioner vide representation dated 22.08.2013. At the end of each trip, the petitioner submitted the medical bill duly counter signed by the Department head o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
