Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1653
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.
Shamsher Singh Pattar - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
CWP No.7816 of 2015
Decided on : 31-08-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG, Haryana.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of contractual employees to medical reimbursement under the new reimbursement policy dated 06.05.2005 (Annexure P-11) and the requirement for the government to act reasonably and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Medical Reimbursement - Contractual Appointment - Government Instructions dated 06.05.2005 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Government instructions dated 06.05.2005 (Annexure P-11), Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-1, Part-1, Article 310 of the Constitution of India, Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - The court found the impugned order/communications to be arbitrary and discriminatory, set them aside, and declared the petitioner entitled to medical reimbursement under the new reimbursement policy dated 06.05.2005 (Annexure P-11). The court also ordered the respondents to pay the petitioner the withheld amount of Rs.2,08,972/- along with interest at 12% per annum, and awarded costs of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Deputy Advocate General in the office of Advocate General, Haryana, submitted a medical bill for his mother's treatment in 2005. After a delay of nine years, the petitioner was informed that he was not entitled to medical reimbursement. The petitioner approached the court, claiming entitlement to medical reimbursement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the impugned order/communications to be arbitrary and discriminatory, set them aside, and declared the petitioner entitled to medical reimbursement under the new reimbursement policy dated 06.05.2005 (Annexure P-11). The court also ordered the respondents to pay the petitioner the withheld amount of Rs.2,08,972/- along with interest at 12% per annum, and awarded costs of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the petitioner to medical reimbursement as a contractual employee, the delay in processing the petitioner's claim, and the alleged discrimination in granting medical reimbursement to similarly situated employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to medical reimbursement under the new reimbursement policy dated 06.05.2005 (Annexure P-11) and that the impugned order/communications were arbitrary and discriminatory. The court also emphasized the need for the government to act reasonably and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order/communications, declared the petitioner entitled to medical reimbursement, ordered the respondents to pay the withheld amount of Rs.2,08,972/- along with interest at 12% per annum, and awarded costs of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.
The important question of law that falls for consideration of this Court is; whether the petitioner, having been appointed as a Law Officer, i.e. Senior Deputy Advocate General, in the office of Advocate General, Haryana, whose appointment was contractual in nature, was entitled for medical reimbursement or not.
2. Instant writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 11.07.2012 (Annexure P-6), as well as impugned communications dated 11.07.2014 (Annexure P-5), 29.12.2008 (Annexure P-7) and 05.07.2012 (Annexure P-8), whereby claim of medical reimbursement of the petitioner, submitted on 17.11.2005 vide Annexure P-3, was not at all considered for long nine years and then petitioner was finally informed, vide impugned communication dated 11.07.2014 (Annexure P-5), that he was not found entitled for medical reimbursement.
3. Briefly put, facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as Senior Deputy Advocate General in the office of Advocate General, Haryana vide appointment order dated 02.05.2005 (Annexure P-1). However, terms and conditions of service of the petitioner along with 12 other Law Officers, came to be fixed later, vide communication dated 25.10.2005 (Annexure P-2). When petitioner was serving as Senior Deputy Advocate General in the office of respondent No.2, his mother fell ill and she was treated in Fortis Hospital, Mohali, for her heart ailment, in the month of June, 2005. Petitioner did not claim any advance and spent the amount from his own pocket, for the medical treatment of his mother.
4. Thereafter, medical bill for an amount of Rs.2,42,454/- was submitted by the petitioner to the office of Advocate General, Haryana vide Annexure P-3 dated 17.11.2005. Concerned officers/officials of the office of Advocate General, Haryana examined the medical bill submitted by the petitioner. Some of the claims, like Ambulance Charges, Food and charges of Doctor's visit, were not found reimbursable. Accordingly, the medical bill submitted by the petitioner was duly checked and verified. Petitioner was found entitled for medical reimbursement for an amount of Rs.2,08,972/- and it was forwarded by the office of Advocate General, Haryana, to the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Jail and Judicial Department-respondent No.1, vide letter dated 06.12.2005 (Annexure P-4), for issuance of necessary sanction for the payment.
5. Surprisingly, no action, whatsoever, was taken on the above said claim of medical reimbursement submitted by the petitioner. After an inordinate long delay of nine years, petitioner received the impugned communication dated 11.07.2014 (Annexure P-5), from the office of Advocate General, Haryana. With this communication (Annexure P-5), petitioner was sent copy of impugned communication dated 11.07.2012 (Annexure P-6), sent by respondent No.1 to the office of respondent No.2. After going through these two impugned communications (Annexures P-5 and P-6), petitioner tried to convince the respondent authorities that he was entitled for medical reimbursement but without any positive results. Having been left with no other option, petitioner approached this Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction, by way of present writ petition.
6. Notice of motion was issued and in compliance thereof, written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 3. However, no reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that claim of the petitioner is covered by the Government instructions dated 06.05.2005 (Annexure P-11). He refers to the opening paragraph of these instructions, at page 49-50 of the paper book, to contend that in compliance of the order dated 21.08.2003 issued by this Court, the matter was reconsidered by the Government and it was decided to formulate a new reimbursement policy, which would be applicable to all Haryana Govern
