NIRMALA ROYAL Vs. KAMLENDRA SINGH CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 21989/2019 in DBSAW No. 512/2019:-

(2.) Amendment made on 05/04/2018 to the Regulation reads as under:-

(3.) Before noting the specific legal issue which arises for consideration in the appeal a backdrop of judgments delivered in the past concerning the proviso prior to its amendment in the year 2018 needs to be highlighted. In the decision reported as AIR 2017 SC 2884 : Narendra Soni and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. the Supreme Court held that neither word remote nor difficult area, used in the proviso, has been defined anywhere. In common parlance, identification of the same would require a consideration of host of factors, such as social and economic conditions, geographical location, accessibility and other similar relevant considerations which may be a hindrance in providing adequate medical care requiring incentivisation. Prior thereto, on 02/07/2009, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India wrote to all the State Governments to provide the inputs and in February 2009 evolved the criteria to determine remote and difficult areas on the following principles:-