N K RAGWANI Vs. STATE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a retired employee of Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur has filed this writ petition, seeking annulment of the decision of the Syndicate of the University bearing No. 83/2001 dated 16.12.2001 and its consequential order dated 12.2.2002 (Annex.10). Apart from these reliefs, the petitioner has also craved for direction against the respondent/University to reimburse the requisite amount of medical expenses, which he has incurred for his cardiac ailment and for undergoing operation of angioplasty at Cardiac Unit, SMS Hospital, Jaipur.

(2.) For claiming the aforementioned reliefs, petitioner has inter-alia averred in the writ petition that while serving the University, he was superannuated as Foreman w.e.f. 31.1.1999. Narrating his cardiac problem, the petitioner has asserted in the writ petition that he was suffering from cardiac problem while in service of the University and taking regular treatment.

(3.) After his retirement in March, 2001 when the petitioner was staying at Jaipur in connection with domestic affairs the cardiac problem took serious turn and that being so, he was immediately hospitalized on 29.3.2001 in the Cardiac Unit of SMS Hospital, Jaipur, which is a Government hospital. As per the advice of the cardiologist, the petitioner was subjected to test of angiography and other requisite investigations. On investigation, it was revealed that due to some blockage in the arteries of the petitioner, angioplasty is necessary and thereupon his angioplasty was performed. The petitioner remained indoor patient in the hospital from 20.3.2001 to 31.3.2001 and thereafter from 10.4.2001 to 12.4.2001. Petitioner has mentioned in the writ petition that he has incurred total expenditure of Rs. 1,19,181/- for his angioplasty. After returning back from Jaipur, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent/University on 31.5.2001 with the requisite medical bills for reimbursement of the total amount of expenditure, which he incurred. The said application of the petitioner was further followed by another application on 19.7.2001. It appears that after retirement of the petitioner, there were some amendments in the University Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme and the same was conveyed by notification dated 20.6.2001. By the said notification, the rate of subscription to the fund was revised. In the notification, it was mentioned that the retired employees can avail benefits of the said Scheme by depositing their arrears or contribution within one month in cash or in the form of Demand Draft in the name of Financial Advisor of the University. As per the version of the petitioner, the petitioner has deposited the requisite arrears for the interregnum period i.e. from 1.1.1998 to 31.1.1999 by his application dated 19.7.2001. With these averments, the petitioner has asserted that his case for reimbursement of medical expenses was fully covered by the University Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme.