SECRETARY TO GOVT PUNJAB, HIGHER EDUCATION AND LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB Vs. HARBHAJAN KAUR L R OF SHRI AJIT SINGH KAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claim for medical reimbursement of the respondent, who has retired as Director of Languages, Punjab, having been allowed by the learned Single Judge, the State of Punjab has filed this Letters Patent Appeal assailing the said order.

(2.) ON medical check -up of the respondent which was undergone by him in 1994 it was diagnosed that both his kidneys had failed. He remained under treatment upto 1997 and thereafter he was advised to undergo dialysis. The respondent remained on dialysis from May 1997 and was under treatment at the Patiala Dialysis and Kidney Centre and Kidney Hospital, Patiala. He submitted an application for ex -post facto sanction of the expenses incurred on his treatment. The District Medical Board in its meeting held on 4.2.1998 granted the necessary sanction at government rates. The respondent also underwent other medical treatment for which he incurred expenses. The medical expenses payable to the respondent were declined in view of the government instructions dated 31.12.1997 which provide that there was to be no reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by an employee for treatment as an outdoor patient w.e.f. 1.1.1998. However, it was also made clear that the facility of medical reimbursement of expenses incurred as an indoor patient would continue. Medical allowance @ Rs. 250/ - per month was given to the respondent. The learned Single Judge relying on the judgments of this Court in Ravi Kant v. State of Haryana, 1998(4) S.C.T. 614 (P&H) : 1998(4) SCT 206 (P&H) : 1998(3) RSJ 705, Jagsir Singh Sandhu v. P.S.E.B., Patiala, Civil Writ Petition No. 15938 of 1998, decided on 1.2.1999 and Renu Saigal v. State of Haryana, 1998(4) SCT 565 : 1998(4) RSJ 557 allowed the claim of the respondent. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that it is conceded position that renal failure is a chronic disease. Besides, had the respondent undergone dialysis as an indoor or outdoor patient in any Government Hospital he would have been entitled for some, if not full, reimbursement for the medical expenses incurred as held in Ravi Kant's case and Renu Saigal's case (supra).

(3.) MRS . Charu Tuli, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the State has contended that the instructions dated 31.12.1997, which provide that no reimbursement of medical expenses shall be given as an outdoor patient w.e.f. 1.1.1998 are based on the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission set -up by the Punjab Government. In terms of the recommendations of the Pay Commission all eligible employees/pensioners of the State Government have been allowed Rs. 250/ - per month as fixed medical allowance. Therefore, it is contended that the policy framed by the State is legal and justified which warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.