Delhi High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 September, 2022
$~43(Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 681/2012
RAMESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pardeep Tara and Ms.Puja
Anand, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sushil Raaja, SPC-UOI-
Railway with Dr.S.K. Nagar, Sr.Divisional
Dental Surgeon-Northern Railway
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T(O R A L)
% 06.09.2022
1. The petitioner in this petition, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India was serving as an officer with the Northern
Railways Headquarters Office. He superannuated on 30 th November
1996. His wife was admitted for treatment in the Paras Hospital,
Gurgaon. The treatment entailed hospital expenses of ₹ 2,00,912/-.
The petitioner claimed reimbursement of the aforesaid payment from
the Chief Medical Superintendent of the Northern Railways. Out of
the said amount, ₹ 1,15,278/- was paid to the petitioner. The writ
petition seeks a mandamus to the respondents to disburse, to the
petitioner, the remaining claim of ₹ 85,634/-.
2. The basis of the petitioner's claim is not supported even by a
whisper of an averment in the entire writ petition. All that is said is
that the petitioner was holding card no. Medical/RELSH/I CARD
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:09.09.2022
15:42:30
No.013238 and registration no. 671/09/RELSH/150872. Thereafter,
the petition merely avers that "as per extant rules", the petitioner was
entitled to reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred for the
treatment of his wife. There is no reference to the rule under which
the petitioner would be so entitled. There is no reference to any
judicial authority, on the basis of which the petitioner claims
entitlement.
3. To a query from the Court as to how a petition could seek a
monetary relief without making out any foundation for such relief in
the body of the writ petition, Mr. Pardeep Tara, learned Counsel for
the petitioner submits that the law in this regard is well settled and that
there are a number of judgments of the Supreme Court and of this
Court on the point. To a further request from the Court to learned
Counsel to cite the decisions on which he seeks to place reliance,
learned Counsel cited only one judgment and thereafter he left the
matter to the Court.
4. The sole judgment cited by Mr. Tara, learned Counsel for the
petitioner is State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla1.
5. A bare reading of the judgment in State of Punjab v. Mohinder
Singh Chawla1 reveals that the respondent in that case was held to be
entitled to medical reimbursement on the basis of decisions taken by
the Government of Punjab in proceedings held on 8 th November 1991.
The following passage from the said decision makes this clear:
"11. We are unable to agree with the stand taken by the
(1997) 2 SCC 83
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:09.09.2022
15:42:30
Government. It is seen that the Government had decided in
the proceedings dated 8-10-1991 to reimburse the medical
expenditure incurred by the Punjab Government
employees/pensioners and dependants on treatment taken
abroad in a private hospital. It is stated in paragraphs 2 and 3
that the Government has prepared a list of those diseases for
which the specialised treatment is not available in the Punjab
Government hospitals but it is available in certain identified
private hospitals, both within and outside the State. It was,
therefore, decided to recognise these hospitals for treatment of
the diseases mentioned against their names in the enclosed list
for the Punjab Government employees/pensioners and their
dependants. The terms and conditions contained in the letter
under reference would remain applicable. The Government
can, however, revise the list in future. The name of the disease
for which the treatment is not available in the Punjab
Government hospitals is shown as Open Heart Surgery and
the name of the private hospital is shown as Escorts Heart
Institute, New Delhi as one of the approved
hospitals/institutions. Thus, for open heart surgery or heart
disease the Escorts Heart Institute is an authorised and
recognised institution by the Government of Punjab.
Consequently, when the patient was admitted and had taken
the treatment in the hospital and had incurred the expenditure
towards room charges, inevitably the consequential rent paid
for the room during his stay is an integral part of his
expenditure incurred for the treatment. Consequently the
Government is required to reimburse the expenditure incurred
for the period during which the patient stayed in the approved
hospital for treatment. It is incongruous that while the patient
is admitted to undergo treatment, he is refused the
reimbursement of the actual expenditure incurred towards
room rent and is given the expenditure of the room rent
chargeable in another institute whereat he had not actually
undergone treatment. Under these circumstances, the
contention of the State Government is obviously untenable
and incongruous. We hold that the High Court was right in
giving the direction for reimbursement of a sum of Rs 20,000
incurred by the respondent towards the room rent for his stay
while undergoing treatment in Escorts Heart Institute, New
Delhi."
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:09.09.2022
15:42:30
6. Mr. Tara candidly acknowledges that his client is not an
employee of the Government of Punjab and that, therefore, the
instructions in the proceedings dated 8th November 1991 would not
mutatis mutandis apply to his client. He, however, submits that he is
seeking to rely on the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid decision.
7. Times without number, the Supreme Court has held that its
decisions are not to be treated as Euclid's theorems or laying down
propositions of law applicable to all facts and to all circumstances2.
While the Supreme Court has, undoubtedly, the authority to lay down
omnibus propositions of law, applicable across the board and to all
citizens which would become binding as declaration of the law under
Article 141 of the Constitution of India, judgments which are rendered
in particular facts and circumstances with reference to particular rules,
regulations, notifications or orders have necessarily to be understood
and applied in the light of those notifications, rules or orders.
8. Clearly, the decision in State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh
Chawla1 is in the backdrop of instructions issued by the Government
of Punjab on 8th October 1991 in respect of employees/pensioners of
the Government of Punjab. It cannot be applied across the board.
Mr. Tara is unable to show any rule, regulation or any other
notification or authority which applies to his client and which may be
analogous to the aforesaid decision taken by the Government of
Punjab.
Refer Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum, (2022) 4 SCC 463, Madras Bar
Association v. U.O.I., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 463, Chintels India Ltd v. Bhayana Builders Pvt Ltd,
(2021) 4 SCC 602
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:09.09.2022
15:42:30
9. Though he submitted that there were several decisions of the
Supreme Court and of this Court on the point, as already noted
hereinabove, Mr. Tara has not deemed it appropriate to cite any
decision except Mohinder Singh Chawla1, whereafter he has left the
matter to the Court.
10. As no legal foundation whatsoever, to sustain the claim of the
petitioner has been brought to the notice of the Court; the Court
regrets that it is unable to come to the petitioner's aid.
11. The petition is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
SEPTEMBER 6, 2022/kr
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:09.09.2022
15:42:30
