GH QADIR BHAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORN of details, petitioner is admittedly a central government employee, working in Radio Kashmir, Srinagar. His son, who was studying in Bangalore, met with an accident there in the year 1994 and was admitted to a private hospital (Manipal Hospital, Bangalore) for treatment owing to his serious condition. The petitioner is governed by Central Rules for the purposes of medical facilities. As the Manipal Hospital is a private hospital, they charged an amount of Rs. 52, 877I - from the petitioner submitted the bill to respondent No. 3 for reimbursement in accordance with the rules. The respondents , on receipt of the bills, wrote to the registrar Manipal Hospital, Bangalore enquiring from them as to whether the hospital was recognised for providing medical treatment to the government employees or not. The Manipal Hospital authorities replied the above communication vide their letter dated 08 -07 -1994 in affirmative. Respondents avoided to reimburse the medical claim. The petitioner made representation vide annexure P2. However, respondent No. recommended the case of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 for reimbursement of the claim. Respondent No. 2 raised certain queries which were duly replied by respondent No. 3 vide annexure P4. Respondent No. 2, not feeling satisfied, raised certain more queries from respondent No. 3 Respondent NO. 3 again replied the communication vide letter dated 01 -02 -1995, reiterating the genuineness of the medical claim of the petitioner upto the tune of aforesaid amount. Respondent No.

(2.) , however, accorded sanction to the medical reimbursement only to the tune of Rs. 11,187/ - instead of Rs. 52,877/ - on the ground that the amount has been calculated by respondent No. 2 after deducting Rs. 25/ - from each claim in pursuance of Health Ministrys order. 2. The petitioner, aggrieved of this sanction, filed this writ petition on the ground that the claim of the petitioner is not only genuine in accordance with the relevant rules, but a total claim in similar case has been reimbursed to one J.P. Angoranda vide annexure P11. According to the petitioner discriminatory treatment has been given to him when his claim was arbitrarily cut from Rs. 52,000/ - and odd to Rs. 11,000/ - and odd. Respondents have filed the counter. It has been admitted that the petitioner is a central government employees and is governed by Central Rules for the purpose of medical facilities. It has been contended that the Central Services (Medical Allowance) Rules, 1944 are not applicable. These were applicable under British Rules. However, it has been admitted that the petitioner is governed by Central Rules and is entitled to such reimbursement under the provisions of Central Services (Medical Allowance) Rules as applicable. It has been contended that the Manipal Hospital, Banglore was not recognised. One of the plea raised by the respondents is that the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement under rules if such treatment would have been undergone in government hospital of Karnataka (Banglore) the expenditure would have been Rs. 7131/ - and Rs. 2381/ - respectively plus the ward charges admissible to the petitioner as per the basic pay instead of Rs. 35,271/ - and Rs. 17.606 as claimed by the petitioner. In para No. 8 of the counter, respondents have shown helplessness while saying that the case of the petitioner was recommended to the Head of the Department for reimbursement and it was recommended that the government servant can admit him and his family members claim if they were admitted on accident. The expenditure can be sanctioned by the Head of the Station. In para No. 9 also it has been categorically admitted that respondent No. 3 has at all times processed the case of the petitioner in time and has not, at any stage, kept pending the claim petition. In para No. 10 it has been admitted that in case of serious accident central government employee can be admitted in the nearest hospital in absence of government hospital and reimbursement of such medical expenses can be provided in full subject to the condition that the requisite certificate is recorded. The main obstruction in reimbursing the medical claim according to the respondents is that they passed in pursuance of Health Ministrys order. lt has been admitted in the objections that J.P. Angorana was admitted in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and the claim was reimbursed in full.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Bhan has raised a preliminary objection that CS (MA) Rules of 1944 under which the petitioner claims the medical reimbursement was in operation when India was under British Rule and, as such, are not applicable now. According to him, the petitioner has no claim for reimbursement under rules. The matter was examined. Mr. Bhan has not been able to show clearly which rules in the alternative are applicable. He has admitted that the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement under CS (MA) Rules, but the year from which these Rules are applicable have not been spelled out by him. The rules have been examined. The basic CS (MA) Rules have been framed undoubtedly in 1944 and have been made applicable therefrom. These rules are even now applicable, with certain modifications made from time to time, as has rightly been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner also has been processed under these very rules by the respondents. -It cannot be denied that our civil and criminal laws and other related rules mostly pertain to British era and are mostly based on those laws which were applicable before 1947. However, Mr. Bhan has not concentrated on this point. I think he has raised the point only for the sake of argument and is not serious about it. Otherwise, he would have come forward with the rules which according to him are applicable at present.