RENU SAIGAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P. G. I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P. G. I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P. G. I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P. G. I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000.00 to Rs. 30,000.00 per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P. G. I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13. 9. 1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000.00 vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11. 8. 1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000.00 be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000.00 per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.

(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P. G. I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules ). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000.00 per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.

(3.) AS against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000.00 per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc. , J. T. 1998 (2) S. C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.