##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:45129-DB]

Reportable HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1090/2022 CNR: RJHC010842022022 | URN: SAW / 2426U / 2022

1. Chairman cum Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidhuyat Vitran Nigam Limited, Sector 7, New Power House Road, Industrial Area, Jodhpur.

2. Executive Engineer, Jodhpur Vidhuyat Vitran Nigam Limited, Sector 7, New Power House Road, Industrial Area, Jodhpur.

3. Assistant Engineer, Csd, C-1st, Jodhpur Vidhuyat Vitran Nigam Limited, Sector 7, New Power House Road, Industrial Area, Jodhpur.

----Appellants Versus Jagdish Chandra Bissa S/o Sh. Punam Chand, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Achlaaton Ka Bas, Brahampuri, Navchokiyan, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Kothari, Mr. Mehul Kothari, Mr. Ayush Goyal, Mr. Bhavyadeep Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, Ms. Aditi Sharma, Mr. Radheshyam Mankad HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

Date : 16/09/2026 Sanjay K. Agrawal, CJ:

1. This writ appeal is directed against the impugned order dated

14.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) has been allowed and the appellants have been directed to reimburse the remaining amount of claim raised by the respondent, within the specified time period.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge is absolutely unjustified in directing reimbursement of entire amount of more than three stents, which is not to be allowed as per Appendix IX of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013 and as such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner) would submit that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition and directed for reimbursement of the complete amount of claim as raised by the writ petitioner within a period of three weeks. In case, a patient is treated in a government hospital, it is the duty of the government hospital to provide all the equipment and if a consumable item is not available then the beneficiary is left with no option other than to purchase the same from the open market. On the aforesaid ground, the appeal may be dismissed.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

5. The Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan &

Ors. vs. Smt. Mohan Kanwar Bhansali¹ has observed in para 6 as under:

“6. The contention overlooks the fact that as per the Rules and the Schemes framed by the Government if

1 D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.246/2019, dated 07.03.2019 a patient under the scheme is admitted at a government hospital it is the duty of the government hospital to provide all equipment. If at the government hospital a consumable item is not available, then the government has to be ensure that the same is available at the government authorized medical store. If it is not available their then the beneficiary is left with no option other than to purchase from the open market.”

6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Consumer Education &

Research Centre and others v. Union of India and others² has held that right to health and medical care to protect his health and vigour while in service or post- retirement is a fundamental right of a worker under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and observed as under: - “22. The expression 'life' assured in Article 21 of the Constitution does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to livelihood, better standard of life, hygienic conditions in the workplace and leisure. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn.³ this Court held that no person can live without the means of living i.e. means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not t