IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Shri Rajkumar Singh Thakur - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 633 of 2015
Decided On : 16-09-2016
Medical Reimbursement - Government Employee - TSR (Recruitment) Rules, 1984 - Rule 8(2), Memorandum No.F.5(10)FIN(G)/75I dated 09.08.2005, Memorandum No.F.5(10) Fin(G)/751 dated 18.09.2013 - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 8(2) of the TSR (Recruitment) Rules, 1984, and the memorandums related to medical reimbursement for government employees and their family members. The court emphasized the retrospective application of the memorandum dated 18.09.2013 to remedy the previous lack of clarity and to advance the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Rifleman (GD) in the 8th Battalion TSR (IRiii), challenged the decision of the respondents to deny reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for the treatment of his father, who was suffering from cancer. The dispute arose from the interpretation of the TSR (Recruitment) Rules, 1984, and the eligibility for medical reimbursement for family members residing outside the State.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the office memorandum dated 18.09.2013 should be applied retrospectively to remedy the lack of clarity and advance the ends of justice. The respondents were directed to reimburse the petitioner's medical expenses within three months from the date of the judgment.
Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of the petitioner for medical reimbursement under the TSR (Recruitment) Rules, 1984, and the relevant office memorandums, especially in the context of his family residing outside the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the office memorandum dated 18.09.2013 should be given retrospective operation to remedy the previous lack of clarity and to advance the ends of justice. This decision was based on the principle of suppressing the mischief and advancing the remedy, as observed in Heydon’s Rule.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to reimburse the petitioner's medical expenses incurred for the treatment of his father. The petitioner was instructed to resubmit the reimbursement bills within 15 days from the date of receiving the judgment.
Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner who is serving as a the Rifleman (GD), Group-C in the 8th Battalion TSR (IRiii) has challenged the decision of the respondents reflected in the communication dated 18.04.2015, Annexure-H to the writ petition, whereby the Director General of Police, Tripura, it has ordered that the reimbursement of the medical expenses, as defrayed by the petitioner for purpose of treatment of his father, who was admittedly suffering from cancer, cannot be made as the case is not covered by the office memorandum dated 18.09.2013. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been appointed in terms of the Rule 8(2) of the TSR (Recruitment) Rules, 1984. The said rule provides that ‘25% of direct recruitment in all ranks in TSR Battalions are made from the State & Union Territories outside Tripura’. However, subsequently the quota has been reduced to 15%. As a result, there is nothing wrong that the petitioner’s family resided somewhere outside the State.
3. The petitioner’s father namely, Jaleswar Singh, now deceased, was suffering from cancer and he was a native of Gulmohar City, Derabashi, Chandigarh. In the first part of 2011, the petitioner’s father had expired suffering from cancer in brain. The petitioner arranged for treatment of his father in a private hospital namely, Silver Oaks Hospital, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Chandigarh and PGINER, Chandigarh. The petitioner submitted the bills for reimbursement of the said medical expenses which he had incurred for treatment of his father from the period from 25.07.2011 to 21.08.2011. The bill for Rs.2,46,454/- (Rupees Two lacs Forty Six thousand Four hundred Fifty Four) was submitted to the Commandant, 8th Battalion TSR, the respondent No.4 herein. It appears that by the communication dated 27.02.2012, Annexure-A to the writ petition, the said Commandant sent a communication raising a query to the Asst. Inspector General of Police and to expedite the said reimbursement process. By the said communication, what has been emphatically made is that at the relevant point of time, the issue of medical reimbursement of the persons whose families are staying outside the State was still pending with the Government. There was no specific order or direction. There is no dispute further that the memorandum under No.F.5(10)Fin(G)/75I dated 09.08.2015, Annexure R/1 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, that the Group-C & Group-D employees are entitled to the medical reimbursement if any member of the family suffers from cancer and the Government employee has defrayed the expenses of medical treatment. For purpose of better elucidation, the relevant clause being Para 2 A(i) is extracted hereunder:
“A.(i) When a Group-C/Group-D Government employee himself/herself suffering from disease other than cancer is referred to Medical Institution/Hospital to which he/she is referred to the cost of treatment in that Institution/Hospital excluding the cost of journey is admissible for reimbursement. This benefit is not admissible in respect of any member of the family of such a Government employee.”
In the prelude of the said memorandum dated 09.08.2015, it has been provided that the cases are to be referred by the State Medical Board for getting treatment outside the State. Admittedly, whether these categories of the Group-C employees, such as who are appointed in the Tripura State Rifles from outside the State in terms of the Rule 8 (2) of the TSR (Recruitment) Rules, are required to conform to the reference as stated for their family members who are residing outside the State was not stated therein. Raising this issue emphatically, the Asst. Inspector General of Police (Ops) through the Director General of Police made a communication to the Home Department, Government of Tripura by his letter dated 06.06.2012, Annexure-C to
Ameer Trading Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.