HEM RAJ MITTAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 3754 -L.P.A. of 2013

(2.) THE appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.8.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 12017 of 2011, whereby the claim of the appellant for balance amount of Rs. 20,988/ - along with interest @ 18% per annum on account of reimbursement of medical bills, has approached this Court under Clause X of the Letters Patent impugning the aforesaid judgment. Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant suffered heart ailments in the year 2007 -08 and was advised bye -pass surgery. He got done his bye -pass surgery from 11.11.2008 to 19.11.2008 at Inderprasth Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, a recognized hospital by the State Government. Before that, the appellant undertook angiography on 31.10.2008 at Fortis Hospital, Mohali. The appellant took a package for bye -pass surgery from Inderprasth Apollo Hospital amounting to Rs. 2,20,000/ - and paid the said amount vide receipts dated 11.11.2008. He also paid a sum of Rs. 601/ - as professional fees and Rs. 100./ - as registration fee. Before that, the appellant had also spent a sum of Rs. 14,359/ - on account of angiography and medicine on 31.10.2008 at Mohali. Thus, the appellant spent a total amount of Rs. 2,35,060/ - on account of bye -pass surgery etc. The appellant submitted the medical bills before the concerned authorities for reimbursement of the same. The respondent -authorities instead of releasing the amount to the appellant started raising frivolous objections for one reason or the other. Accordingly, the appellant served a legal notice on 15.9.2010 for reimbursement of the medical bills.' Upon which, a sum of Rs. 1,16,700/ - was sanctioned instead of Rs. 2,41,980/ - which was released on 6.5.2010. Thereafter, the appellant sent various representations including a detailed representation dated 3.9.2010 to respondent No. 2 but no action was taken thereon. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed C.W.P. No. 12017 of 2011. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 9.8.2012 holding that the appellant -writ petitioner, had been granted the benefit of reimbursement as per the policy of the Government of Haryana and, therefore, the claim made by him did not sustain. Still dissatisfied, the appellant approached this Court by way of instant Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The plea of parity for the release of the amount in the cases of Bhagat Singh, Sneh Lata Sood and Promila Yadav was repelled by the learned Single Judge with the following observations: - -