Rajeshwari Mathur vs State And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 11096 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3515/2016

Rajeshwari Mathur W/o Late Shri Kedar Lal Mathur, Aged about 68 years, R/o 26, Shanti Nagar, Opposite Ashapurna Temple, Chopasani, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Member Secretary-cum-Director, Pension & Pensioners Welfare Department Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Joint Secretary, Rajasthan State Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme, Directorate Pension & Pensioners Welfare Department Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The District Treasury Officer (Rural), Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma Mr. Rahul for Mr. D.S. Sodha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG Mr. Ravi Panwar, AGC for R.2 & R.3

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

06/09/2022

The present petition has been filed with the prayer for

reimbursement of the non-paid amount qua the medical bills of

the petitioner.

The case of the petitioner is that she was operated for the

replacement of hip joint. The total expenses incurred on the said

medical treatment was Rs.1,48,979/- but an amount of

Rs.71,065/- was only reimbursed to the petitioner qua the said

amount. The case of the petitioner is that the complete medical

expenses incurred on the treatment be reimbursed to her.

(2 of 3) [CW-3515/2016]

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that in terms of the Rules governing the petitioner, the amount

reimbursable was already reimbursed to the petitioner. Learned

counsel further submitted that the treatment taken by the

petitioner was in a private hospital, that is, Apollo Hospital,

Bangalore and therefore, she would be entitled for reimbursement

only to the extent the Rules prescribed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to

refute that the amount to the extent of the permissible limits in

terms of the Government Rules has been reimbursed to her.

In State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga

and Ors. reported in AIR 1998 SC 1703, it has been held by the

Hon'ble Apex Court that the Government would be justified in

limiting the medical facilities to the extent it is permitted by its

financial resources. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of

Rajasthan Vs. Mahesh Kumar Sharma reported in (2011) 4

SCC 257 while relying upon the judgment passed in Ram

Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) held as under :

"In the instant case, the Government has formulated necessary rules permitting the reimbursement of medical expenses in certain situations and upto a certain limit. The Government has been reimbursing the necessary expenditure as permitted by the rules uniformly. It will, therefore, not be proper for a Government employee or for his relatives to claim reimbursement of medical expenses otherwise than what was provided in the Rules 9."

Further in the case of State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs.

R. Vivekananda Swamy and Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC

2080, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :

"18. In view of the aforementioned settled principles of law there cannot be any doubt that the Rules regarding reimbursement of medical claim of an employee when he obtains treatment from a hospital of his choice can be made limited. Such a

(3 of 3) [CW-3515/2016]

rule furthermore having been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India constitutes conditions of service in terms whereof on the one hand the employee would be granted the facility of medical aid free of cost from the recognized government hospitals and on the other he, at his option, may get himself treated from other recognized hospitals/institutions subject of course to the conditions that the reimbursement by the State therefore would be limited."

In view of the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

and in view of the fact that the amount as permissible by the

Rules had already been reimbursed to the petitioner, this Court

does not find any ground to interfere in the present petition. The

same is therefore dismissed.

(REKHA BORANA),J 21-AnilKC/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)