ROHTASH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has left with limited grievance. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has asked for quashing of letter dated 05.03.2011, Annexure P-8, passed by respondent No. 3 whereby medical OPD reimbursement has been rejected on the ground that he is getting fixed amount of Rs. 500/- per month. The limited issue, thus, is to see if this could be a valid reason to decline the prayer of the petitioner for getting reimbursement for amount spent by him on OPD treatment.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner has placed before me a Division Bench judgment in the case of Renu Saigal versus State of Haryana, 1998 4 SCT 565, where the Court has held that the rules do not make any distinction about the outdoor and indoor for the purpose of reimbursement. Referring to the instructions making such distinction and fixing amount of Rs. 500/- per month as maximum limit is held contrary to the Rules and, thus, not justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The decision in Renu Saigal's case (supra) has subsequently been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of C.B. Gupta Versus State of Haryana and others, 2003 1 SCT 316. In view of the settled position of law, consistently followed by this Court, action of the respondents in denying reimbursement on money spent by him as outdoor patient cannot be sustained.

(3.) The writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-8 is quashed and consequence thereof the petitioner is held entitled to reimbursement on the amount spent by him as outdoor patient but on the rates as regulated by the instructions.