TARA SINGH CHEEMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BASICALLY , the Respondent -State of Punjab accepted in pith and substance that the Petitioner while working as District & Sessions Judge, in the cadre of superior judicial service with the State of Punjab developed some eyes problem. In February, 1980, his eye sight was rapidly deteriorating. After going through various medical tests, the Petitioner was diagnosed to be suffering from a disease known as Intra -Cellular Tumour (Chromphobe Adenoma), an ailment having risk to life. Since there was no treatment available in the country for this disease, on being recommended by the Respondent -State of Punjab, for his treatment in U.S.A the Petitioner left in huff -half for States accompanied by his wife. Necessary foreign exchange were provided by the Ministry of Finance, The Petitioner was treated by Dr. E.M. Housepian in Presbytarian Hospital at Columbia in the city of New York. Post operation care as well as examination by the Expert was advised for 10 weeks. The Respondent -State of Punjab certified that the treatment was justified and there was no other alternative but for this treatment in the U.S.A. (Reference may be made to Annexure P -17. The factum of minimum expenses, asserted by the Petitioner to be the most economical for himself and the attendant's boarding and lodging, their two ways air tickets expenses, the fare and number of daily trips from the place of stay to the hospital and the number of days required by the doctors for hospitalisation of the Petitioner, are not in controversy. Reimbursement to the named persons for their travelling expenses, boarding and lodging, and their other expenses incurred in connection with their treatment including the expenditure incurred by their attendants are also not in dispute.

(2.) THE only objection raised is that the employee of the State are allowed re -imbursement of medical charges in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendants) Rules, 1940. The State Government in relaxation of instructions, rules and other statutory provisions on extreme compassionate grounds to deplete the hardship in individual case has allowed the reimbursement referred to above. It was done in the case of the Petitioner too and actual hospital bills were paid to him on 15th May, 1991. The delay in processing the case was attributed to the Petitioner. It is stated that the Petitioner did not properly maintain the record/bills etc. The right to claim interest is denied. The claim for reimbursement was received on 11th August, 1980 by the Respondent. It is admitted that other persons named, received the money in advance for incurring expenditure on their medical treatment abroad as well as entire expenditure incurred by them on travelling, boarding, lodging etc. spent by them including spent on their attendants was reimbursed.

(3.) RULES , ensuring the health of their employee by providing treatment or reimbursement for expenditure incurred in treatment, apart from being in consonance with the directive principles of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution are part and parcel of the social -welfare Legislation in a welfare State. It is legislation meant to improve the working conditions of the State employees which in turn is conducive for the better administration by the State. Providing medical attendance free of cost is an act towards securing health and strength of the workers and to further ensure that the economic necessities of the employees do not force them to enter in to a vocation unsuited to their strength or outside their job. The State is bound to endeavour at raising the living conditions of the people and improvement of public health.