L P SANODIA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order (Annexure P-12), dated 9-3-2004, by which respondent No. 2 declined to reimburse medical bill of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled for any reimbursement after the date of his retirement.

(2.) Shri Dixit, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner, while he was in service, suffered serious heart ailment. The petitioner was admitted in Escort Hospital, Delhi where he remained under treatment between 15-7-2003 and 20-9-2003. The petitioner attained age of superannuation on 31-7-2003 but his treatment was continued even after superannuation. Initially Angiography was done. But subsequently as per advise of fhe doctor, the petitioner underwent Open Heart Surgery. The petitioner suffered a total expenditure of Rs. 3,20,298/-. Though the respondents reimbursed partly expenditure up to the date of retirement of the petitioner, but declined to reimburse remaining expenditure. The petitioner took medical treatment advance of Rs. 92,000/-, out of which 11,190/- were adjusted and in respect of remaining amount, the petitioner was directed either to deposit rest of the amount or the amount was directed to be adjusted towards gratuity and other retiral dues.

(3.) It is submitted that the petitioner was entitled for reimbursement of the entire medical expenses from the respondents. Reliance is placed to a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in State of M.P. and others Vs. Dr. Vishwanath Prasad Khare,2009 3 MPJRSN 9, and also to Rule 6 of Pension Welfare Funds Rules, 1997.