The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 4093 OF 2014 Shiv Kumar Prasad … … Petitioner V E R S U S 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Jharkhand Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, Ranchi 4. Inspector General of Police (Budget), Jharkhand, Ranchi, Jharkhand Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, Ranchi 5. Superintendent of Police, Latehar. 6. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 7. Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi 8. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi 9. The Principal Secretary, Family and Health Welfare, State of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi … ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate : Mr. K.K. Singh, SC-V Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC For the Accountant General: Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate 18/27.02.2023 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to reimburse medical expenses incurred by him during his treatment at different hospitals as he had suffered extensive injuries while discharging his official duty which required specialized treatment. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing of Memo No. 58/Account Section Dated 04.02.2014, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Latehar, pursuant to Memo no. 786/B, dated 21.12.2013, issued by the respondent no. 4 whereby petitioner has been directed to furnish documents showing that he was referred by any official of Medical College in Jharkhand to hospitals outside State for specialized treatment. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing of memo no. 799, dated 15.10.2019 written to respondent no. 5 and subsequent thereto memo no. 665, dated 16.10.2019 written to the petitioner demanding documents regarding bill of medical expenditure and discharge slip counter signed by the head of the institution. RC 2 3. As per factual matrix, petitioner was working as a Sub- Inspector of Police and posted at Latehar. During his posting at Latehar, while attending his duties, he met with an accident and suffered extensive life threatening injuries. After first-aid, petitioner was shifted to RIMS, Ranchi and thereafter discharged after treatment. Due to serious injuries including injuries upon his head, petitioner was not feeling well and as such he got himself treated in Orchid Hospital, Ranchi. However, due to various complications, he rushed to Heart Hospital, Patna and thereafter, Narayan Hridyalaya, Jamshedpur and Magadh Hospital, Patna. Thereafter, he was further advised to get proper treatment in specialized hospital and as such he was taken to AIIMS, New Delhi. However, due to serious condition, petitioner was not admitted in AIIMS with an advised to get treatment elsewhere. Thereafter, petitioner was admitted to Max-Heard Care, New Delhi on 15.08.2013 and he underwent treatment as indoor patient till 18.09.2013. 4. After his return to Latehar, petitioner submitted the Bills amounting to Rs.12,10,776.81 towards the medical expenses incurred during his treatment. However, the same was not considered by the respondents rather petitioner was asked to submit several other documents showing that he was referred for treatment to hospital outside the State and also whether that was approved by the head of the institution. The respondents further demanded the letter recommending treatment outside the State. Petitioner tried his best to get those documents but he was not successful and, thereafter, this writ petition was filed. 5. Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that it is an admitted case that petitioner sustained injuries while going to join his duties and in view of grievous injuries and consequences, he was treated in different hospitals to save his life and the relevant bills were submitted before the authorities for its reimbursement. Learned counsel further submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstances in which petitioner received his treatment to save his life, it was not possible to him to get permission and thereafter to go for treatment. The injuries and consequential ailment was of such nature that if he would not have rushed to the hospitals for specialized treatment, there would have been serious threat to his life. The respondents, while considering case of the petitioner, did not RC 3 consider the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and merely in a routine manner, rejected claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the injuries and treatment are not in dispute and the respondents should have considered his case sympathetically and should not have rejected his case in a mechanical manner depriving him from reimbursement of the bills towards the expenditure incurred in his treatment. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was a member of disciplined police force and without even caring for his life, he performed his duties with all diligence, sincerity, honesty and to the satisfaction of the authorities even in the naxal infested areas. Petitioner has already taken Voluntary Retirement on 01.03.2014. It has also been submitted that as per letter of the respondents, he has already submitted required documents which was procured in the year 2018 itself. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents authorities ought have taken sympathetic consideration for reimbursement of the Bills which was incurred during the course of treatment. Learned counsel further argues that once it is established that claim is genuine, the same cannot be rejected on a mechanical and technical grounds. 6. 7. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. K.K. Singh, learned SC-V representing State opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and further submits that it is not in dispute that petitioner was treated in various hospitals but as per requirements, rules, directions and conditions, a patient getting treatment outside the State or in a private hospital, has to seek permission and in absence of that, his case cannot be considered. Learned counsel further submits that even in the year 2014, petitioner was directed to submit certain documents but he did not submit the same and in absence of the same, final order has been passed. 8. Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel representing the office of the Accountant General submits that case of the petitioner is of prior to the year 2016. The treatment is not in dispute. Petitioner had undergone treatment in various hospitals i.e. Orchid, AIMS, Max etc. Learned counsel further argues that there was no rule at the relevant point of time for seeking prior permission for treatment. The respondents authorities ought to have taken a decision for reimbursement. Learned counsel further RC 4 argues that decision has to be taken by the State and if a decision is taken and matter is recommended for reimbursement, the office of the Accountant General shall look into the matter. 9. Having heard rival submissions of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. It is not in dispute that petitioner was serious and got himself treated in different hospitals. There is no quarrel to the fact that case of the petitioner was duly recommended by the Superintendent of Police, Latehar where he was working at the relevant point of time. In such types of cases where life of an employee is in danger, the respondents authorities should not have considered the case mechanically and should not have rejected the case on technical grounds. Petitioner has already taken voluntary retirement. Petitioner had sustained grievous injuries while on duty, which is also not in dispute. In absence of any recommendation by the State authorities, the matter could not have been rejected mechanically. 10. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India reported in JT 2018 (4) SC 269, and paragraphs 13 and 14 thereof reads as under: “13. … … “Before any medical claim is honoured, the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported by records duly certified by Doctors/ Hospitals concerned. Once it is established, the claim cannot be denied on technical grounds.” 14. … … The relevant authorities are required to be more responsive and cannot in a mechanical manner deprive an employee of his legitimate reimbursement. The Central Government, health Scheme (CGHS) was propounded with a purpose of providing health facility scheme to the Central Government employees so that they are not left without medical care after retirement. It was in furtherance of the object of a welfare State, which must provide for such medical care that the scheme was brought in force.” 11. 12. This Court in the case of Gopal Chandra Mahato Vs. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others in W.P.(S) No. 5247 of 2018 and further in the case of Sitaram Mehta Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others in W.P.(S) No. 3701 of 2016, has reiterated the same view. In the instant case, it is not denied that petitioner sustained grievous injuries while on duty and further petitioner was treated in various hospitals in Latehar, Ranchi, Patna, Jamshedpur and Delhi. It is also RC 5 admitted that petitioner had taken voluntary retirement. Merely on the ground that case of the petitioner was never recommended by the State authorities or prior permission has not been taken for getting treatment in the specialized hospitals, case of the petitioner ought not have been rejected mechanically. Rejection of case of the petitioner in a mechanical manner reminded the situation of Shylock and Portia. The respondents authorities have acted like Shylock. They would not have been insisted for a particular document. When case is admitted, treatment is not denied, it is incumbent upon the respondents to consider pity situation of the concerned employee who has endangered his life for service of the State. It is not in dispute that petitioner was on duty and sustained injuries. 13. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, I, hereby, direct the respondents – Secretary, Department of Health to consider case of the petitioner for reimbursement of total amount incurred in treatment of the petitioner. The respondent authorities, while passing the order, should not insist the documents like prior recommendation etc.. They are fully aware that petitioner was their own employee and the matter was recommended by the Superintendent of Police, Latehar. Compassion is required to be show in these types of cases. In view of observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha (Supra) , the respondents are directed to take a decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 14. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements, the impugned orders issued vide Memo No. 58/Account Section Dated 04.02.2014, by the Superintendent of Police, Latehar, pursuant to Memo no. 786/B, dated 21.12.2013, issued by the respondent no. 4 as also the memo no. 799, dated 15.10.2019 written to respondent no. 5 and subsequent thereto memo no. 665, dated 16.10.2019 written to the petitioner demanding for documents regarding bill of medical expenditure and discharge slip counter signed by the head of the institution, are hereby quashed and set aside. The entire payments be made within a period of six weeks thereafter in accordance with law. 15. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. RC (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)