Gujarat High Court
Yogesh Mafatlal Barot vs State Of Gujarat on 31 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19207 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
==========================================================
YOGESH MAFATLAL BAROT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HB CHAMPAVAT(6149) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
N L BAROT(7485) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 31/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.04.2022 passed in the Recovery Application No.48 of 2017 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, District Mehsana whereby, the Recovery Application for reimbursement for the medical bill of the amount of Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:34:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined Rs.1,45,965/- with 18% interest came to be rejected.
2. Petitioner has contended before this Court that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent- Corporation on 03.011.1979 as a Helper at Siddhpur Depot, Palanpur Division and subsequently promoted at Mehsana Division, Patan Depot as Art-A Electrician. On 31.05.2016 when the petitioner was on duty, petitioner suffered heart problem and was admitted in the Hetal Health Care Hospital wherein, after treatment, petitioner was discharged on 02.06.2019. Petitioner was advised for Angiography or bypass as a future course of action by the concerned Doctor. The total expenditure incurred was of Rs.22,914/- and thereafter again the petitioner got admitted in U.N.Mehta Hospital on 07.06.2016 and angiography was performed and thereafter the petitioner was discharged on 09.06.2016 with a report of blockage of artery, there, the total expenditure incurred was of Rs.7,868/-. Again the petitioner got admitted himself to SAL Hospital, Ahmedabad as on 15.06.2016 for bypass surgery and as per the insistence of the Hospital, the deposit of Rs.1,80,000/- was made towards the advance. Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:34:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined Thereafter, on performing the bypass surgery, petitioner was discharged on 23.06.2016 and there the total expenditure incurred was of Rs.1,83,108/-.
3. The petitioner submits the total expenditure bill of Rs.2,13,890/- for his medical treatment, however, the respondent-Corporation has partially cleared the bill on 02.09.2016 for an amount of Rs.5,597/-, on 29.09.2016 for an amount of Rs.62,346/- and out of the total bill amount of Rs.2,13,890/-, only part amount of Rs.69,925/- came to be cleared, however, remaining amount of Rs.1,45,965/- was not cleared by the respondent- Corporation. Thereafter, as the health of the petitioner did not remain good, the application for Voluntary Retirement was given which was accepted and the petitioner was permitted to retire from the service from 30.11.2016. Thereafter, various requests were made for clearance of the remaining medical bill and ultimately the Notice was also issued calling upon the respondent to clear the medical bills of Rs.1,45,965/-.
4. Waiting for quite a long time, the application filed under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "ID Act") being Recovery Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:34:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined Application No.48 of 2017, claiming the medical bill of Rs.1,45,965/- with 18% interest. Learned labour court, after hearing the parties has rejected the above application which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Champavat for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for the respondent and learned AGP Ms.Bhati for the State.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Champavat submits that the treatment from the hospital which was taken i.e. from SAL Hospital and U.N.Mehta Hospital which figures in the list of approved hospitals in the Resolution dated 20.12.2005. However, despite the said Hospitals were categorized as approved hospitals, the medical expense bill which was given was not cleared by the respondent. Learned advocate Mr.Champavat submits that for not clearing the above bills, the reliance of the Resolution of the year 2005 was placed which was prior to 10 years of the surgery and the amount of Rs.67,925/- was only cleared. Learned advocate Mr.Champavat submits that the aforesaid policy was framed in the year 2005 and thereafter, despite there were hike in the rates of the Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:34:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined medical treatments, the policy remained as it is and the Corporations are not paying the amount as per the prevailing rate of the Hospitals.
6.1. Learned advocate Mr.Champavat has relied on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of KP Singh Versus Union of India reported in 2001 10 SCC 167 and submitted that as per the observation made by the Apex Court, State Government is bound to revise the rates from time to time so that the beneficiary receives the reimbursement as per the expense incurred by the concerned employee. Learned advocate Mr.Champavat has also relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Chandrakant Kantilal Dave versus State of Gujarat and submitted that the Authorities are required to be more responsible and cannot in mechanical manner deprive the employee of his legitimate reimbursement. Learned advocate Mr.Champavat submits that object of framing of policy is to provide medical care and therefore, expenses which is incurred is required to be reimbursed immediately. Learned advocate Mr.Champavat submits that without considering the above decision, the learned labour court Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:34:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined has rejected the application filed under section 33(C)(2) of the Act, 1947 and therefore, impugned award deserves to be set aside and petition is required to be allowed.
7. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw appearing for the respondent-Corporation has submitted that the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of reimbursement in accordance with the policy framed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation as the employer. The policy suggests that for the heart problem, the rules provide medical reimbursement upto Rs.60,000/-. It is submitted that this policy has been implemented uniformly throughout the State of Gujarat by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and accordingly the bill of Rs.67,925/- was released and after considering the circular dated 20.12.2005 being a policy decision, the learned labour court has rightly dismissed the Recovery Application filed by the present petitioner and therefore, no interference is required. Therefore, prayer is made to dismiss the petition.
8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates and on perusing the circular dated Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:34:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined 20.12.2005, it emerges that the petitioner has undergone bypass surgery and had taken treatment at three different hospitals and placed the medical bill for the amount of Rs.2,13,890/-. As per the circular dated 20.12.2005, Rs.60,000/- has been released towards the coronary artery by Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) and Rs.6,000/- was sanctioned for the medicines. It is claimed by the petitioner that the treatment is taken in the year 2016 and the circular which is issued by the Corporation is of 20.12.2005 and therefore, instead of applying the said circular, reimbursement should be made at prevailing rate. The decision which was relied by the learned advocate Mr.Champavat for the petitioner, where the issue was with regard to taking the treatment from the hospital which were not empanelled by the Corporation. In that background it was held that even if the rates were exorbitant, however, considering the emergency condition for survival of his life, the sanction and treatment from the empanelled hospital cannot be the only factor for reimbursement of the bill. 8.1. In the instant case, it is not the ground that the treatment was taken from the hospital which are not Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:34:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined empanelled by the Corporation and however, the medical bills were not cleared on the basis of the circular dated 20.12.2005 wherein, the specific rates are fixed for the reimbursement of the bill for different ailments. It is undisputed position that this circular has been implemented uniformly throughout the State of Gujarat by Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and therefore, whether this Court, in exercise of the power under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India can issue the directions to reimburse the bills beyond the policy, is a moot question for consideration before this Court.
8.2. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ugar Sugar Works Limited versus Delhi Administration reported in 2001 3 SCC 635 wherein, it is held that in exercise of the power of judicial review, court would not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions unless such policy could be faulted on the grounds of malafides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness, unfairness etc. Mere fact that it would hurt the business interests of the parties, could not justify invalidating the policy. The Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:34:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined policy decisions involved in complete economic factors, therefore the Courts would refrain from interfering with the economic decisions as the same has been recognized by the economic expediences, lack of adjudicative disposition.
8.3. It is for the State to change, re-change, readjust the policy after taking relevant and german consideration, therefore, it would be discretion of the State or to the framers of the policy to frame the policy in accordance with the need and other material aspects. Interference in the decision related to the policy would amount to the act as an Appellate Authority examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of the policy. The Apex Court in the case of Directorate of Film Festivals versus Gaurav Ashwin Jain reported in 2007 4 SCC 737 has held that "Nor are the courts Advisors to the executive on the matters of the policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining the policy of the government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:34:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with the policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative, is available. Neither legality of the policy, nor the wisdom or soundness of the policy can be subject matter of judicial review."
9. In that background this Court is of the view that Courts cannot interfere with the policy decisions and to hold that petitioner is entitled for the reimbursement which is not permissible by circular dated 20.12.2005.
10. Resultantly this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:34:02 IST 2025