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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
