Back
2014 Supreme(Tri) 124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S.C. Das, J.
Amalesh Chandra Deb - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 241 of 2011
Decided On : 14-03-2014
For the Appellant :Mr. P. Roy Barman and Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mrs. A.S. Lodh, Addl. G.A. and Mr. P. Datta, Advocate
The right of medical reimbursement accrued under a memo cannot be taken away by a subsequent corrigendum with retrospective effect, and the State has a constitutional obligation to provide healthcare, including reimbursement for necessary treatments.
Headnote:
Medical Reimbursement - Tripura Housing and Construction Board - Tripura Housing Board Act, 1978 - [Memo dated 08.12.1999, Corrigendum dated 14.11.2011] - The court held that the right of medical reimbursement accrued under Memo dated 08.12.1999 cannot be taken away by a subsequent corrigendum with retrospective effect. The petitioner was entitled to medical reimbursement for the second time treatment at AMRI hospital, Kolkata, as the State had a constitutional obligation to provide healthcare and the Board was bound to reimburse the medical bill.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Group 'C' employee under the Tripura Housing and Construction Board, fell ill and was referred for treatment outside the State. He submitted medical bills for reimbursement, but the Board declined payment based on a corrigendum issued after the petitioner's illness.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the corrigendum could not retrospectively take away the right of medical reimbursement accrued under the previous memo. The petitioner was entitled to reimbursement for the second time treatment at AMRI hospital, Kolkata, as the State had a constitutional obligation to provide healthcare.
Issues: 1. Whether the right of medical reimbursement accrued under Memo dated 08.12.1999 can be taken away by a subsequent corrigendum with retrospective effect? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the medical reimbursement as claimed by him?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the corrigendum dated 14.11.2011 cannot have a retrospective effect curtailing the right of the citizens already accrued pursuant to Memo dated 08.12.1999. The petitioner's claim of reimbursement of the medical bill cannot be declined or refused because of the corrigendum.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was entitled to get medical reimbursement for his second time treatment at AMRI hospital, Kolkata. The respondents were directed to make payment of the medical reimbursement bill within 45 days from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT
S.C. Das, J.:-The petitioner has/had been working in the post of Head Clerk under the respondent No. 2, The Tripura Housing and Construction Board (for short, the Board) a creation of the Tripura Housing Board Act, 1978. While in service he fell ill in the month of September 2009, with severe chest pain and was admitted in Agartala Govt. Medical College and Govind Ballav Panth Hospital (for short, AGMC and GBP Hospital). It was diagnosed that he was suffering from severe heart disease and as such the medical board of AGMC and GBP Hospital referred him to Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Science (for short, RNTIICS), Kolkata for treatment. Respondent No. 2, the Board, sanctioned advance of Rs. 30,000/- for the treatment. The petitioner availed the treatment. On his return, he submitted medical bill amounting to Rs.1,51,526/- and the Board sanctioned the amount. In the second week of October, 2010, the petitioner again fell seriously ill and was admitted in AGMC and GBP Hospital on 08.02.2010 and it was diagnosed that he was suffering from 'drug induces complete heart block' in a case of 'post ITC and hyper thyrotain'. The State medical Board of AGMC and GBP Hospital again referred the petitioner to AMRI hospital, Kolkata for treatment. He was again favoured with a medical advance of Rs. 30,000/-. The referral certificate dated 18.10.2010 has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner accordingly availed the treatment at AMRI hospital and he was discharged on 20.11.2010. The treatment report and operation note annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. On his return he submitted a medical bill of Rs. 1,55,798 in total with supporting necessary documents to the Chief Executive Officer of the Board on 15.12.2010 and the Chief Executive Officer ordered the Accounts Officer and Administrative Officer to process the bill (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). Thereafter the petitioner approached the Chief Executive Officer of the Board (Respondent No. 3) again and again demanding payment of the bill but the bill has not been paid. It is contended by the petitioner that vide Memo dated 08.12.1999 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition), issued by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, medical re-imbursement was available to Group 'C' employees and in view of that memorandum the petitioner was entitled to get the medical reimbursement for treatment etc. outside the State. After the writ petition was filed by the petitioner, Joint Secretary of the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura by issuing a corrigendum dated 14.11.2011 (Annexure P/7(A) to the writ petition), interfered in Memo dated 08.12.1999 and thereby deleted the prescription of entitlement of the medical reimbursement to Group 'C' employees. The claim of the petitioner of his medical reimbursement bill was referred to the 75th Board meeting of the Tripura Housing and Construction Board. The agenda of the Board meeting has been annexed as Annexure 9 and the minutes of the Board meeting dated 24.05.2011 has been annexed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The petitioner's claim was placed in agenda Point No. 9(b) and the Board decided that the second time medical reimbursement of the petitioner cannot be paid. The petitioner challenged the corrigendum dated 14th November, 2011 (Annexure P/7(A) to the writ petition) and also challenged the decision of the 75th Board meeting held on 24.05.2011 in respect of his claim and further prayed for directing the respondents to make payment of reimbursement bill with T.A. Bill amounting to Rs. 1,75,793/-. Respondent No. 1 filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioner being a Group 'C' employee was not entitled to medical reimbursement as claimed by him in view of the corrigendum dated 14.11.2011 (Annexure P/7(A) of the writ petition). A copy of which is also annexed as Annexure R/1 to the counter affidavit. It is contented that as per rules the petitioner is allowe
