The State and its instrumentalities cannot restrict medical reimbursement for essential surgeries using an archaic policy that fails to reflect contemporary medical costs, as such action is deemed unreasonable and arbitrary under the principles of a welfare-oriented administration.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Lakshit V. Patel for learned advocate Mr. H.B. Champavat for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for respondent no.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for the respondent State.

2. Having regard to the controversy involved which is in a narrow compass, With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing at the admission stage. Hence, Admit. Learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.2 Corporation and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-original petitioner was working with the respondent Corporation and suffered heart problem due to which he was admitted to Hetal Heartcare Hospital wherein after treatment, he was discharged on 02.06.2016. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that he was advised for angiography and bypass as the future course of action by the concerned doctor.

4. The appellant accordingly got admitted in U.N. Mehta hospital on 07.06.2016 and angiography was performed and was discharged on 09.06.2016 with a report of block artery.

5. Subsequently, the appellant petitioner got admitted to SAL hospital, Ahmedabad on 15.06.2016 for bypass surgery.

6. The appellant petitioner therefore, incurred Rs.22,914/- for the medical treatment at Hetal Heartcare Hospital, Rs.7,868/- for treatment at U.N. Mehta Hospital and Rs.1,83,108/- for bypass surgery at SAL Hospital, totalling to Rs.2,13,890/-.

7. The appellant petitioner submitted the bills for reimbursement with the respondent corporation. However, the respondent partially cleared the bill on 02.09.2016 for meager amount of Rs. 69,925/- and amount of Rs. 1,45,965/- was not cleared and paid to the appellant.

8. The appellant thereafter due to his ill-health gave application for voluntary retirement after completion of notice period and by office order dated 30.11.2016, the application for voluntary retirement was accepted and the appellant was deemed retired from 30.11.2016 onwards.

9. Thereafter, it is the case of the appellant that several oral requests were made for clearing the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,45,965/-. However, the respondent Corporation did not clear the same. Therefore, notice dated 1.06.2017 was issued through advocate calling upon the respondent corporation to pay the remaining amount of medical bills submitted by the appellant.

10. The appellant thereafter preferred Recovery Application No.48/2017 before the Labour Court at Mehsana under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for recovery of Rs. 1,45,965/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respondent authority.

11. The Labour Court after considering the documents placed on record and providing opportunity of hearing to both the sides, by order dated 21.04.2022 rejected the Recovery Application No. 48/2017.

12. The appellant therefore, being aggrieved preferred Special Civil Application before this Court challenging the order of the Labour Court as the Labour Court has relied upon resolution dated 20.12.2005 issued by the respondent corporation for rejecting the recovery claim made by the appellant.

13. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2025 dismissed the petition on the ground that the respondent corporation has followed its policy for reimbursement of the medical expense