Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Shiv Kumar Prasad S/O- Mundrika Prasad on 1 March, 2024
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A No.501 of 2023
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi Office at Jharkhand
Police Headquarters Dhurwa, P.O Dhurwa, P.S Jagarnathpur, District
Ranchi.
3. Inspector General of Police (Budget), Jharkhand, Office at Jharkhand
Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, P.O Dhurwa PS-Jagarnathpur, District
Ranchi.
4. Superintendent of Police, Latehar office at Latehar, P.O & P.S Latehar,
District Latehar. ......... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. Shiv Kumar Prasad s/o- Mundrika Prasad, R/o Village Motha, P.O,
Bhadari, P.S-Arwal (T). District- Arwal (Bihar)
...... ... Respondent
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi, Office at Project Bhawan, P.O-Dhurwa, P.S-Jagarnathpur,
District Ranchi.
3. Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, Office at Project Bhawan P.O-Dhurwa, P.S-
Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi.
4. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Office at Project
Bhawan P.O Dhurwa, P.S Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.
5. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi.
6. The Principal Secretary, Family and Health Welfare, State of
Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
...... ...Proforma Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the State of Jharkhand : Dr. (Mrs.) Vandana Singh, Sr.SC-III
For the Respondent No.1 : None
---------
1st March 2024
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.
This interlocutory application has been filed under section 5
of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 256 days in
preferring L.P.A No.501 of 2023.
2. In this application, the appellant has stated as under:
"4. That it is stated and humbly submitted that the appellant
came to know about the order dated passed by this Hon'ble in
W.P. (S) No. 4093 of 2014 on 17.05.2023.
5.That thereafter the concerned section of the department after
perusal of the records produced the file on 18.5.2023 before the
Inspector General (Provision). He has directed to take
appropriate steps with regard to order passed in the writ
petition by the Hon'ble Court.
6. That thereafter the file forwarded to the concerned section,
the concerned section communicated to the Superintendent of
police, Latehar about the order passed in Writ petition on
30.5.2023. Thereafter, the concerned section placed file before
the Higher official and it was decided to file appeal against the
order dated 27.2.2023 on 17.6.2023.
7. That thereafter records and documents were obtained and
given to the advocate for preparation of statement of facts and
ground of appeal on 3.7.2023. The same prepared and received
by the appellant department on 10.8.2023.
8. That thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of police (Legal)
forwarded it to the Inspector General (Provision) for necessary
perusal. The same was further placed concerned officials for
verification and thereafter placed before the Director General
of Police and got approval on 21.8.2023.
9. That thereafter the officer was authorized to sworn the
appeal and handed over along with all records to Government
Counsel for filing the letters patent appeal on 2.9.2023.
10. That thereafter the letters patent appeal was drafted,
affidavited on 9.9.2023 and filed on 12.9.2023.
11. That thereafter the Registry of this Hon'ble Court has
pointed out certain defects and the same has been cured by the
appellant.
12. That however, the appeal in the meantime has become
barred by 256 days.
13. That the appellants state that the delay in filing the appeal
was not intentional rather on account of procedural delay and
taking final decision some extra time has been consumed by
the appellant.
14. That the delay caused in preferring the memo of appeal has
not been deliberate or intentional rather has been caused due to
the official procedures, correspondences for the purpose of
proper filing of the same before the Hon'ble Court."
3. In view of the averments made in the application, we think
that sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant-State of Jharkhand
for condoning the delay of 256 days in filing this Letters Patent Appeal
and, accordingly, I.A No. 2341 of 2024 is allowed.
4. The State of Jharkhand has challenged the writ Court's
direction to reimburse the respondent no.1 (in short, "the respondent")
for the medical expenses incurred by him in course of his treatment at
different hospitals.
5. Dr. (Mrs.) Vandana Singh, the learned Sr. SC-III submits
that the direction issued by the writ Court ignores the mandatory
requirement under the Government instructions vide letter dated 15th
September 2006 for medical reimbursement to a Government employee.
The submission made by the learned State counsel is that the writ Court
cannot issue a direction to the employer not to follow the applicable
rules for medical reimbursement.
6. Before the writ Court, the respondent pleaded that in course
of discharge of his duty he suffered life threatening injuries and was
administered First-Aid at RIMS at Ranchi. Later, he availed treatment at
Orchid hospital at Ranchi but on account of complications he was
referred to the hospitals at Jamshedpur and Patna for treatment. Since
the health condition of the respondent was not improving, he was taken
to AIIMS at Delhi and thereafter he was treated at Max Healthcare at
New Delhi between 15th August 2013 and 18th September 2013, as
indoor patient. The learned State counsel has endeavored to indicate that
the respondent did not suffer any injury in course of his employment
rather he had suffered brain stroke; vide application dated 30 th October
2013. This submission is based on the pleadings by the respondent in
paragraph no.4 of the writ petition wherein he has pleaded that he met
with an accident while attending his duty and suffered extensive
life-threatening injury. In our opinion, there is no contradiction between
the aforesaid statement in the application for medical reimbursement
and in paragraph no.4 of the writ petition. The injury suffered by a
person on account of brain stroke would definitely be life-threatening
injury. Moreover, the respondent suffered brain stroke during discharge
of his duty and the happening of such incident definitely can be said to
be accidental. The expression "accident" need not be construed in its
literal meaning and, moreover, this is the phraseology used by the
counsel for the respondent on the basis of which a plea that the
respondent did not approach the writ Court with clean hands cannot be
based.
7. There were as many as three counter-affidavits filed before
the writ Court and in none of them the appellants raised any doubt
regarding the respondent taking treatment in various hospitals at Ranchi,
Jamshedpur, Patna and Delhi. On the contrary, the Superintendent of
Police at Latehar in his letter dated 27th November 2013 recognized that
vide Memo dated 23rd October 2013 the Inspector-General of Police
(Human Rights) sanctioned Rupees One Lakh for treatment of the
respondent. This is also not disputed that the nature of injury/ailment
suffered by the respondent was such that the requirement under the
Government instruction for taking prior approval for treatment in the
hospitals other than empaneled hospitals could have been completed by
the respondent. The accidental injury (Aakasmik) is one of the incidents
provided under the Government instructions vide letter dated 15th
September 2006 which admits medical reimbursement to a Government
employee. Lastly, the learned State counsel has referred to a decision in
"State of Rajasthan v. Mahesh Kumar Sharma" (2011) 4 SCC 257 to
submit that what is not provided under the rules cannot be granted to a
Government employee. However, as the facts in "Mahesh Kumar
Sharma" would reveal, in that case a claim for reimbursement of
medical expenses was made beyond the limit provided by the State of
Rajasthan. Quite evidently, "Mahesh Kumar Sharma" does not lend any
help to the appellant-State of Jharkhand in laying a challenge to the writ
Court's order dated 27th February 2023 passed in W.P(S) No.4093 of
2014.
8. The writ Court has observed as under:
9. Having heard rival submissions of the parties across the bar,
this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner
needs consideration. It is not in dispute that petitioner was
serious and got himself treated in different hospitals. There is no
quarrel to the fact that case of the petitioner was duly
recommended by the Superintendent of Police, Latehar where he
was working at the relevant point of time. In such types of cases
where life of an employee is in danger, the respondents
authorities should not have considered the case mechanically
and should not have rejected the case on technical grounds.
Petitioner has already taken voluntary retirement. Petitioner had
sustained grievous injuries while on duty, which is also not in
dispute. In absence of any recommendation by the State
authorities, the matter could not have been rejected
mechanically.
10. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India reported
in JT 2018 (4) SC 269, and paragraphs 13 and 14 thereof reads
as under:
"13. ... ... "Before any medical claim is honoured,
the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the
claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum
of treatment is supported by records duly certified
by Doctors/ Hospitals concerned. Once it is
established, the claim cannot be denied on technical
grounds."
14. ... ... The relevant authorities are required to be
more responsive and cannot in a mechanical manner
deprive an employee of his legitimate
reimbursement. The Central Government, health
Scheme (CGHS) was propounded with a purpose of
providing health facility scheme to the Central
Government employees so that they are not left
without medical care after retirement. It was in
furtherance of the object of a welfare State, which
must provide for such medical care that the scheme
was brought in force....."
11. This Court in the case of Gopal Chandra Mahato Vs. M/s.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others in W.P.(S) No. 5247 of 2018
and further in the case of Sitaram Mehta Vs. The State of
Jharkhand and others in W.P.(S) No. 3701 of 2016, has reiterated
the same view.
12. In the instant case, it is not denied that petitioner sustained
grievous injuries while on duty and further petitioner was treated
in various hospitals in Latehar, Ranchi, Patna, Jamshedpur and
Delhi. It is also admitted that petitioner had taken voluntary
retirement. Merely on the ground that case of the petitioner was
never recommended by the State authorities or prior permission
has not been taken for getting treatment in the specialized
hospitals, case of the petitioner ought not have been rejected
mechanically. Rejection of case of the petitioner in a mechanical
manner reminded the situation of Shylock and Portia. The
respondents authorities have acted like Shylock. They would not
have been insisted for a particular document. When case is
admitted, treatment is not denied, it is incumbent upon the
respondents to consider pity situation of the concerned
employee who has endangered his life for service of the State. It
is not in dispute that petitioner was on duty and sustained
injuries.
13. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, I, hereby, direct the
respondents - Secretary, Department of Health to consider case
of the petitioner for reimbursement of total amount incurred in
treatment of the petitioner. The respondent authorities, while
passing the order, should not insist the documents like prior
recommendation etc.. They are fully aware that petitioner was
their own employee and the matter was recommended by the
Superintendent of Police, Latehar. Compassion is required to be
show in these types of cases. In view of observations made by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha (Supra) ,
the respondents are directed to take a decision within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this
order.
14. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines,
judicial pronouncements, the impugned orders issued vide
Memo No. 58/Account Section Dated 04.02.2014, by the
Superintendent of Police, Latehar, pursuant to Memo no. 786/B,
dated 21.12.2013, issued by the respondent no. 4 as also the
memo no. 799, dated 15.10.2019 written to respondent no. 5 and
subsequent thereto memo no. 665, dated 16.10.2019 written to
the petitioner demanding for documents regarding bill of
medical expenditure and discharge slip counter signed by the
head of the institution, are hereby quashed and set aside. The
entire payments be made within a period of six weeks thereafter
in accordance with law.
15. This writ petition is accordingly allowed."
9. As we have noticed, the appellants did not dispute at any
stage that the respondent suffered brain stroke which definitely is
accidental and the claim raised by the respondent shall squarely fall
under the aforementioned Government letter. However, what is
contended on behalf of the State of Jharkhand is that a Government
employee seeking medical reimbursement is required to produce bills
counter-signed by the head of the medical hospitals/institutions which is
a mandatory requirement not fulfilled by the respondent. As this Court
understands, such a requirement necessarily pertains to examining the
genuineness of the medical reimbursement claim made by the
Government employee. However, in a case where the genuineness of the
claim itself is not under challenge merely because the respondent has
failed to submit medical expenses/bills counter-signed by the head of the
medical hospitals/institutions where he took treatment shall not be a
ground to outrightly reject the claim for medical reimbursement. The
writ Court definitely cannot issue a direction to the employer not to
follow its own rules and regulations but then an employer is also under a
duty to demonstrate fair play in action. The problem which seems to
have been compounded by the Government authorities which is reflected
in numerous communications and a number of counter-affidavits filed
before the writ Court could have been resolved by a simple direction to
the respondent to submit an indemnity bond accompanied with an
affidavit affirming the genuineness of the medical bills submitted by
him.
10. In the present case, the writ Court has passed the impugned
direction for medical reimbursement to the respondent having regard to
the admitted facts brought on record which definitely give rise to
equitable consideration in favor of the respondent. It was those early
days when the Court of Chancery in the England recognised the
insurmountable difficulties faced by the litigants on account of strict
adherence to law that equity found its birth. It is well settled that this
Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India acts as a Court of law and equity. The concept of equity which
evolved in common law to obviate the rigors of strict compliance of law
is now well ingrained in our judicial system and that is the reason in
appropriate cases the writ Court may grant relief to the party aggrieved
[refer,"Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan
& Anr." (1986) 2 SCC 679].
11. As noticed above, the writ Court referred to various
judgments including in "Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India" JT 2018 (4)
SC 269, "Sitaram Mehta v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors." in W.P(S)
No.3701 of 2016 and "Gopal Chandra Mahato v. M/s Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd & Ors." in W.P(S) No.5247 of 2018 to form an opinion that
once the respondent authorities admitted treatment taken by the
respondent in the hospitals at Ranchi, Jamshedpur, Patna and Delhi, the
claim of medical reimbursement could not have been declined. After
having examined the materials on record, we have also formed a similar
opinion and do not find any reason to interfere in this matter and,
accordingly, L.P.A No.501 of 2023 is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
sudhir /AFR
