[2025:RJ-JD:35069-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1792/2021 Ratan Singh S/o Ramdeo Singh, Aged About 56 Years, 111, Sri Shanker Nagar, Jhalamand Circle, Jodhpur, Presently Working As USHER (Jamadar) Honble High Court, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Honorable High Court Of Raj., At Jodhpur Through The Registrar General.

2. The Registrar Classification, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

3. The Accounts Officer, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit Mr. Veeram Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Singh for Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG Mr. Aniket Tater HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Order

07/08/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the rejection of the entire claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting X3 (Off Pump) (hereinafter referred to as ‘CABG treatment’).

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as Jamadar (Class-IV Employee) in Rajasthan High Court and the petitioner underwent CABG treatment and incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,68,000/- for the said treatment and also incurred further medical expenditure of Rs. 32,000/-. The expenses incurred for the surgery of CABG, the respondent-authorities sanctioned Rs. 44,000/- and the rest of the claim was rejected, and as against the medical expenditure of Rs. 32,000/-, only an amount of Rs. 28,823/- was paid, and as against another medical expenditure of Rs. 6,099/-, only Rs. 5,431/- was paid and the rest was rejected. The claim of the petitioner is that under the overall heads, the respondent authorities denied the reimbursement of Rs. 1,31,929/-. Such inaction of the respondents is contrary to the Rules; therefore, he is before this Court.

3. The case of the respondents is that the claim for the reimbursement was duly considered in the context of Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2013’). It is also the case of the respondents that the petitioner’s claim is governed by Appendix-XI and the petitioner’s claim was considered in the context of eligibility contained in Appendix-XI of the Rules of 2013 with regard to the specific kind of treatment/surgery as contained under Appendix-XI(4) & Appendix-X(a) of the Rules of 2013. The respondents further claimed that the entire consideration of the reimbursement claim was done in compliance with the entitlement of the petitioner in terms of the applicable Rules and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner should have been considered under Appendix-XI(1) of the Rules of 2013 and instead of doing that, they have considered the claim under Clause 4 of Appendix-XI read with Appendix-X(a), thereby the actual amount spent by the petitioner was not fully reimbursed and a fixed amount contemplated under Appendix-X(a) was only paid; therefore, such rejection with regard to the specific surgery is not sustainable in terms of the Rules.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9975/2018 titled ‘Shrigopal Guchiya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.’ has considered the entitlement for reimbursement for a specific kind of surgery contemplated under Appendix-IX and held that the claimant therein was entitled to full reimbursement. The petitioner is also entitled to be treated in accordance with the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Shrigopal Guchiya (supra).

Therefore, he seeks to allow the petition.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the case of the petitioner was considered in the light of Rule 7 read with Appendix-XI(4) and Appendix-X(a). It is also submitted that the petitioner underwent CABG treatment as is made out from the medical bills submitted