Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD(LUCKNOW BENCH)
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
Sunder Singh Solanki – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Medical & Health Deptt. & Ors. – Respondent
Service Single No.6063 of 2017
Decided on : 25-01-2021
medical reimbursement - government servant - Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Medical and Attendance) Rules, 2011 - The judgment discussed the application of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Medical and Attendance) Rules, 2011 in the case of a government servant seeking reimbursement for medical expenses incurred due to an accident during official duty. The court highlighted the obligation of the state to secure the health and welfare of its citizens, emphasizing the right to life and the duty of the government to provide adequate medical facilities. The judgment also emphasized the need for a liberal and sympathetic interpretation of the Rules to serve the interest of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government servant, sought reimbursement for medical expenses incurred due to an accident during official duty. The petitioner's claim for reimbursement was initially rejected, leading to the filing of a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's medical bills were duly verified and the condition was critical, necessitating specialized treatment. The court emphasized the obligation of the state to secure the welfare of its citizens and the right to life, including the right to good health. It also highlighted the need for a liberal and sympathetic interpretation of the applicable rules.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of medical reimbursement to the petitioner, the application of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Medical and Attendance) Rules, 2011, and the obligation of the state to provide adequate medical facilities for its citizens.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the obligation of the state to secure the welfare of its citizens, including providing adequate medical facilities. It also highlighted the right to life and the duty of the government to reimburse medical expenses incurred by government employees. The judgment emphasized the need for a liberal and sympathetic interpretation of the applicable rules to serve the interest of justice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the competent authority to reconsider the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of medical bills in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Medical and Attendance) Rules, 2011.
JUDGMENT :
1. In effect, the present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 29.09.2016 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow and also to command the respondents to pay the remaining amount of medical reimbursement of Rs.8,84,879.60 against the expenses at Apollo Indraprasth Hospital, New Delhi and Rs.53,027/- against the expenses at KGMU, Lucknow along with 18% interest including the amount of Rs.3,30,000/- against the expenses of Air Ambulance and also the amount spent against the private rooms of hospital.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner met with an accident during late hours of night at 1.45 am on 26.07.2010 while he was posted as Station Officer, Police Station Gosainganj and was on patrolling. The petitioner sustained severe injuries and he was brought to Trauma Centre in King George Medical University, Lucknow. At a later point of time, looking to the condition of the petitioner, he was referred to Indraprasth Apollo Hospital New Delhi for further treatment. The petitioner was Airlifted and he was remained in the hospital up to 22.08.2010. On 23.08.2010, the petitioner was sent to Lucknow and he remained under treatment at King George Medical University till 08.04.2011. On 09.04.2011, the petitioner joined his services on the advise of the doctors. The petitioner submitted his all bill vouchers amounting to Rs.98,406/- spent in KGMU and Rs.10,99,219.60 spent in Apollo Hospital, New Delhi to the D.I.G. Police, Lucknow Range who referred the matter to the Director General Medical Health, Lucknow (opposite party no.2). The opposite party no.3 sanctioned only an amount of Rs.1,48,340/- against the expenses at Indraprasth Apollo Hospital New Delhi and Rs.45,479/- against the expenses at K.G.M.U., Lucknow. The amount of Rs.3,30,000/- against the bill of Air Ambulance was not sanctioned.
3. Being dissatisfied with the meager amount, so sanctioned, the petitioner preferred a representation to the Additional Director, Medical and Health, Lucknow (opposite party no.3) on 18.04.2011. Thereafter the petitioner has filed a writ petition No.6092 (SS) of 2012 praying therein to reimburse the amount so incurred on the medical treatment. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.08.2016 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent no.4-Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow for ventilation of his grievance by making a representation which shall be considered and decided by the respondent no.4 in accordance with law. It was also observed that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow while considering the matter under this order shall also give finding as to whether provisions of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011 are applicable to the case of the petitioner or not. The petitioner preferred a representation in compliance to the order of this Court dated 01.08.2016, which has been rejected by impugned order dated 29.09.2016 on the ground that the claim has been settled before issuance of the U.P. Government Servants (Medical Attendance), Rules, 2011. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no.3 in a very illegal and arbitrary manner without applying his mind sanctioned only an amount of Rs.1,48,340/- against the claim of Rs.10,33,219.60 and Rs.45,479/- against the claim of Rs.98,406/-. Learned counsel submits that the actual claim of the petitioner was verified by the competent authorities of the K.G.M.U, and the Apollo Hospital New Delhi, but the authorities did not sanction the entire amount and no reason has been assigned. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be denied the payment of entire amount of medical reimbursement as he met with an accident and sustained serious injuries while he was on official duty. Learned counsel submits that as per the earlier Government Orders and the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Medical and Attendance) Rules, 2011 (for short
The obligation of the state to secure the welfare of its citizens, including providing adequate medical facilities, and the right to life, encompassing the right to good health, were the central lega....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that government employees are entitled to full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for the treatment of themselves or their dependents, and ....
The time period indicated in Rule 11 and Rule 16 of the Rules of 2011 is mainly directory and not mandatory in nature, and the rejection of a medical reimbursement claim should be in consonance with ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a humane and flexible approach in applying the J&K Civil Services (Medical Attendance-cum-Allowance) Rules, 1990, especially in cases ....
The principles of administrative fairness mandate that decisions impacting individuals' rights must be reasoned, and arbitrary rejections are unsustainable under the law.
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
