M RAMABHADRA RAO Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These seven writ petitions have been filed by the Members of Higher Judicial Service and subordinate judiciary questioning the action of the respondents in restricting their medical claim for reimbursement in respect of the medical expenses actually incurred by them as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and irrational and have prayed that the entire amount of medical expenses incurred by them be ordered to be reimbursed.

(2.) Instead of narrating facts of each case we are referring the facts as are disclosed in Writ Petition No.21304 of 2001. The petitioner in the said writ petition is a retired District Judge and at the relevant time was working as President, District Consumer Forum-ll, Hyderabad. He retired from service on 31-8-1997 as the Chairman of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and admittedly is governed by the A.P. Integrated Medical Attendance Rules, 1972 and also the All India Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1954. His wife on 7-9-1999 complained of severe chest pain. In view of the critical and emergent situation she had to be admitted in Care Hospital, Hyderabad on the same day. The Care Hospital is a super specialty hospital for heart ailments and is also recognized as a referral hospital by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. By G.O.Ms. No.175, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, dated 29-5-1997, the Government has permitted both serving and retired employees as also their dependants to secure treatment in private hospitals recognized in the Government Orders. However, 20% cut is imposed on eligible amount after getting the bills scrutinized by the Director of Medical Education, Hyderabad, in case treatment is obtained without a prior reference.

(3.) The petitioner alleged that his wife underwent treatment for Sclero degenerative heart disease and had permanent pace maker implantation as a life saving measure. She was discharged on 15-9-1999. The petitioner incurred an expense of Rs.1,23,380/- towards the cost of pace maker, hospitalization charges, etc. Necessary bills, receipts, essentiality certificate etc., were duly submitted through letter dated 11-10-1999. The High Court addressed a letter to the Government recommending full reimbursement by relaxing the rule, as a special case. The Government by its order, as is conveyed to the petitioner by letter dated 4-9-2001, sanctioned only Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses purporting to be in relaxation of the rules. The petitioner's case is that after he was conveyed the decision of the Government sanctioning only Rs.50,000/-, being the ceiling limit imposed vide G.O.Ms. No.184, dated 2-4-1992, he on 28-2-2001 represented for reimbursement of the balance amount of Rs.70,380/-. This request was forwarded by the High Court with its recommendation for consideration of the Government. The representation was rejected with the observations that the Government has already sanctioned the maximum ceiling limit of Rs.50,000/- without imposing 20% cut. Therefore, the claim for amount incurred by the petitioner over and above the ceiling limit is negatived. This action is under challenge in the writ petition to be illegal, arbitrary and also discriminatory.