LAWS(GAU)-2012-2-100

STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. PRANGOBINDA DAS

Decided On February 13, 2012
STATE OF TRIPURA And ORS. ...APPELLANTS Appellant
V/S
PRANGOBINDA DAS ...RESPONDENT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against order, dated 07.04.2011, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 43 of 2011.

(2.) The petitioner approached this Court, presenting WP(C) No. 43 of 2011, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, stating, inter alia, that on 25.03.2008, the petitioner, suddenly, fell seriously ill and he was taken to Tripura Sundari District Hospital, Udaipur, for treatment. The doctors, attending him, at the said hospital, had a video conference with the 'Asia Heart Foundation' and it was advised that the petitioner shall undergo, immediately, angiography and other appropriate measures be taken. Considering petitioner's serious condition, the doctor of Tripura Sundari District Hospital referred the petitioner to Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences (RTIICS), Kolkata, for proper treatment and he was accordingly shifted there for treatment. On his return, after treatment, the petitioner submitted medical reimbursement bill (M.R. bill) in the Public Works Department, where he was working as an employee in the post of Pump Operator, claiming reimbursement of the bill pursuant to Memo. No. F.5 (10)-FIN (G)/75-1 dated, Agartala, 9th August, 2005 (hereinafter mentioned as 'Memo, dated 09.0B.2005'). The Deptt. refused to allow the claim on the ground that the petitioner was not referred to by the State Medical Board for treatment outside the State. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction to the State respondents for reimbursement of the bill.

(3.) The respondents contested the writ petition, contending, inter alia, that the petitioner was receiving treatment, in Tripura Sundari District Hospital, with the help from the RTIICS, but he was never referred to by the State Medical Board for treatment at RTIICS, Kolkata, and, hence, the petitioner was not entitled to get reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by him for his treatment.