ASST REGIONAL DIRECTOR Vs. SHIVJISINGH CHANDRADEO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Mr. Desai, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent workman waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent herein.

(2.) By this appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 5.11.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in aforesaid petition. The facts of the petition filed by the respondent, in short, are that the respondent has filed the aforesaid petition on the ground that his daughter Anjukumari aged about 8 years developed complication in the chamber of heart because of defect in the heart valve. Therefore, she was admitted in the Surat Civil Hospital in the month of September, 1996. The respondent-original petitioner was advised to admit his daughter at Ahmedabad and also advised to go for operation. The costs of the operation was estimated at Rs. 22,256.00. Therefore, under the provisions of the ESI Act, the petitioner had approached the respondent No. 2 Assistant Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Baroda for payment of the costs of the operation in accordance with the provisions of the ESI Act. The respondent No.2, under his letter dated 3 1/07/1997, advised the petitioner to incur the expenses at his own and then he should claim for reimbursement. The daughter of the petitioner was admitted on 22/08/1997 and she was discharged on 8/09/1997 and she was operated on 27/08/1997. According to the petitioner, with great difficulty, he could arrange for the amount for operation and thereafter, the petitioner approached the original respondent no.2 under his letter dated 20th April, 1998 for payment of the amount. Said letter was replied by the respondent no. 2 that the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement has been forwarded to the Director of Medical Services ESI Scheme, Ahmedabad for further necessary action and, thereafter, the aforesaid petition was filed by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge of this Court.

(3.) In the said petition, in response to the notice issued by the learned Single Judge, no reply was filed by the respondents and, therefore, after considering the facts on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 5/11/1998. The said petition was admitted and decided on the even day by the impugned judgment and order. The learned Single Judge, under the impugned judgment and order, allowed the said petition directing the respondent Corporation to give to the petitioner compensation of Rs. 5,000.00 as also costs of the petition which was quantified at Rs. 2,000.00. Said amount of compensation and costs was directed to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the writ and it was also directed that the Secretary, Welfare Department should inquire into the matter and should initiate the departmental inquiry against the erring officer/s of the respondent department for the delay in making payment and it was also directed that the Secretary should report to this court about the action on 2 9/11/1998 and, thus, the learned single Judge allowed the said petition to the aforesaid extent, which is under challenge in this appeal before this court, as stated above.