ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is yet another glaring example how the functionaries of the Government in higher echelon of the State have remained indifferent and insensitive towards the ply and misery of their subordinates working under them. Since a long time this Court has been noticing that in the matters of permission for medical treatment at specialized centers outside the State, persons close to the powers-that-be manage to get permission very easily and quickly. It is the Government employees at the lower level, specially of class-III and class-IV, who do not get such permission at all or definitely do not get it in time to rush outside the State to avail the best medical treatment of the ailment diagnosed and when there is still time. Invariably, case after case, this Court has come across instances where the employees or their spouses were diagnosed some serious complicated ailment and have to rush to specialized centers outside the State without waiting for formal orders and permission on their application for the purpose. However, when they return after treatment and submit their medical reimbursement bills, the same are invariably rejected in each case, taking recourse to the technicalities of the Bihar Medical Attendance Rules, 1947 of obtaining prior permission for availing such specialized treatment outside the State at centers known amongst the best in the country. In case of class-III and class-IV employees this Court has not found that the discretion of the authorities under Rule 26 is exercised by the competent authority on its own in favour of the employees. As against this, this Court has not come across any case where such discretion has been refused to officers of higher grades and those being close to the nucleus of the power in the Government. This Court again and again has found that in exercise of discretion under Rule 26, in practice, a clear discrimination is made in respect of Government officers of higher rank vis-a-vis their subordinates in the Government in lower rank.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to as many as 7 orders of this Court, in each of which, this Court had directed the authorities to exercise the discretion under Rule 26 in favour of the employee. For the purposes of record a list of said decisions relied upon by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is being reproduced herein below:

(3.) This Court may point out that the 7 judgments relied upon by learned Counsel for the Petitioner as mentioned above, are not only judgments on the issue. In fact, if the aforesaid judgments are looked into, reference of several earlier judgments is found therein noticed by the Court, where same view has been taken by this Court consistently. One specific reference is required to be made to the case of Ram Sagar Ram v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2003 3 PLJR 729 wherein, as far back as in 2003, this Court had suggested the Government to replace the archaic Bihar Medical Attendance Rules, 1947 by a more appropriate rules dealing with the present situation and taking into account the stark reality that this State is still devoid of specialized and well equipped hospitals and centers to deal with the serious and complicated ailments affecting the people of the State. This is also fit to be noticed with pain that inspite of such suggestion of this Court made more than 7 years back Government has not risen to the occasion by coming up with proper and adequate rules in this regard so far.