LAWS(DLH)-1994-8-8

G S BHANGOO Vs. EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL

Decided On August 05, 1994
G.S.BHANGOO Appellant
V/S
EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a retired employee of the respondents, seeks a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the respondents to make payment to him by way of reimbursement of his medical bill for Rs.66,947.34 claim for which was submitted by him on 25 March 1991. The petitioner also claims interest on this amount for delayed payment at the rate of 15% per annum.

(2.) There are two respondents; namely, the Export Inspection Council and Export Inspection Agency, both constituted under the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963. It is not disputed that both the respondents are "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and are amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) The petitioner was working with the respondents as Assistant Director (Administration) and he retired from service on 1 October 1992. During the course of his employment, in March 1988 the petitioner had to undergo an operation for knee joint implantation. This operation was performed on him by Dr. Ashok Raj Gopal at Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital, New Delhi. The entire medical claim amounting to Rs. 53,555.38 raised by the petitioner for the said operation was reimbursed to him by the respondents as per the rules. The petitioner, however, again met with an accident on 9 October 1990 and as a result of which he suffered fracture of his thigh bone which had to be operated upon. On account of this accident the petitioner also suffered dislocation of his right knee joint which had been implanted in March 1988. On the same day the petitioner went to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (A.1.1.M.S.). Seeing his condition at the O.P.D. of A.1.1.M.S. the doctors advised him to get treatment from Dr. Ashok Raj Gopal who had earlier operated upon him. The traumatic condition of the petitioner demanded an emergency double operation and implant which, he said, the doctors at A.1.1.M.S. were reluctant to perform. The petitioner, therefore, went to Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital, New Delhi, for his operation and treatment and remained there from 9 October 1990 to11 October 1990, from 1 8 October 1990 to 27 October 1990 and again upto 25 January 1991 for recovery and treatment. He himself bore the expenses of double operation and implant and the expenses of hospitalisation and treatment including expenses on medicines, artificial appliances etc. After his recovery he submitted his medical claim bill to the respondents which was submitted in the prescribed form as per rules. The petitioner claimed reimbursement of Rs.66,947.34. This bill was submitted by him on 25 March 1991. The respondents did not respond in spite of various reminders by the petitioner for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him. It was only on 23 March 1992, after a year of the submission of the bill by the petitioner, that the respondents sought the following clarifications :-