DINESHCHANDRA DAHYABHAI PATEL Vs. MUNICIPAL SCHOOL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner who was in service of respondent No.1 as Assistant Teacher having been appointed since 21.11.1963 and retired on 31.10.2000 on attaining the age of superannuation and who suffered Cardio Arrest on 17.8.2000 while the petitioner was on duty at the school and immediately taken to the Rajasthan Hospital, where he was admitted as indoor patient and had to undergo Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (CABS) as advised by the expert doctors and operated successfully on 21.8.2000 and later on came to be discharged from the hospital on 26.8.2000. Upon refusal by the respondent authorities of his medical bill for reimbursement for the actual expenses for the amount of Rs.91,948/ - for CABS seeks appropriate order in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that necessary certificate with regard to CABS dated 26.8.2000 was issued by Dr. Anil Jain, Consultant Cardiothoracic Surgeon of Rajasthan Hospital, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad and necessary representation was made by the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that so far as respondent No.1 is concerned recommendations to reimburse the medical expenses of the petitioner as a special case was forwarded vide resolution dated 18.4.2001 produced at Annexure C to the petition. However, later on, the above item was placed on the agenda of the Standing Committee Meeting held on 26.1.2005 for seeking approval of the Municipal Corporation to consider the recommendations made by the school board.

(3.) SHRI Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in reimbursing the medical bill of Rs.91,948/ - deserves to be set right, in as much as, the petitioner has infact undergone Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (CABS) and above fact is not disputed. Not only that but learned advocate for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 has recommended sanction of reimbursement of the above bill as a special case and other two employees are already given benefit pursuant to the decisions passed by this Court in different Special Civil Applications as stated herein above. Learned advocate, therefore, submits that considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is also an employee of the respondent and almost similarly situated deserves equal treatment at the end and appropriate order be passed.