GURCHARAN LAL SADANA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who appeared in person, retired on 31/1/1988 from the post of Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Punjab. The petitioner had to undergo bye-pass surgery in April 1991 at AIIMS, New Delhi and thereafter has been getting follow-up treatment regularly from FORTIS, a government recognized Institute at Mohali. The petitioner submitted his medical bills on 27.9.2001 for reimbursement of the expenses incurred on Angiography and/or post operational treatment. According to the petitioner, though his claims are squarely covered by one or the other judgment of this Court, however, only part-reimbursement has been made and most of the expenses incurred by him as an "outdoor patient" have been refused to be reimbursed. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has been filed, in which it is stated that an amount of Rs.9,442/-, which the petitioner spent as an indoor patient, has already been reimbursed, however, the expenses to the tune of Rs.5363/- claimed by him on "outdoor treatment" cannot be reimbursed as per the government policy. Two additional affidavits, dated 3.2.2005 and 24.5.2005, have also been filed on behalf of the respondents. In para 2 of the affidavit, dated 24.5.2005, it is averred that the monthly treatment expenditure incurred by the petitioner cannot be reimbursed in view of the Punjab Govt. letter dated 31.12.1997 whereby the system of reimbursement of 'outdoor' medical treatment has been discontinued. The issue as to whether or not the expenditure incurred by a government employee/retiree on 'outdoor treatment' is also liable to be reimbursed, is no longer res-integra. In Letters Patent Appeal No.445 of 1999 (State of Punjab v. Dr. Hardev Singh), decided on February 14, 2006, a Division Bench of this Court (to which I am a Member) held as follows:-

(3.) It has, thus, been the stand of the respondents themselves that after issuance of the instructions, dated 1.9.2000 and 21.7.2004, the expenditure incurred on 'outdoor treatment' is also reimbursable subject, however, to other conditions contained in those instructions. The stand taken by the respondents in their reply and/or the additional affidavits as referred to above, is thus contrary to their own instructions as well as the view taken by this Court, unless the respondents come up with the plea that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the purview of instructions, dated 1.9.2000, or the subsequent policy.