SCA/19115/2006 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 19115 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= DINESHCHANDRA DAHYABHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s) Versus MUNICIPAL SCHOOL BOARD, & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR VAIBHAV A VYAS for Petitioner(s) : 1, NANAVATI & NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 1, RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 14/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner who was in service of respondent No.1 as Assistant SCA/19115/2006 2/8 JUDGMENT Teacher having been appointed since 21.11.1963 and retired on 31.10.2000 on attaining the age of superannuation and who suffered Cardio Arrest on 17.8.2000 while the petitioner was on duty at the school and immediately taken to the Rajasthan Hospital, where he was admitted as indoor patient and had to undergo Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (CABS) as advised by the expert doctors and operated successfully on 21.8.2000 and later on came to be discharged from the hospital on 26.8.2000. Upon refusal by the respondent authorities of his medical bill for reimbursement for the actual expenses for the amount of Rs.91,948/- for CABS seeks appropriate order in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that necessary certificate with regard to CABS dated 26.8.2000 was issued by Dr. Anil Jain, Consultant Cardiothoracic Surgeon of Rajasthan Hospital, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad and necessary representation was made by the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that so far as respondent No.1 is concerned recommendations to reimburse the medical expenses of the petitioner as a special case was forwarded vide resolution dated 18.4.2001 produced at Annexure C to the petition. However, later on, the above item was placed on the agenda of the Standing Committee Meeting held on 26.1.2005 for seeking approval of the Municipal Corporation to consider the recommendations made by the school board. SCA/19115/2006 3/8 JUDGMENT 2.1. In spite of the repeated representation, no decision was taken and, therefore, petitioner has knocked the door of this Court with support of a case decided on similarly situated employee of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation who was treated for bypass surgery and taken to a private hospital namely Rajasthan Hospital upon refusal to reimburse the actual medical expenses filed vide Special Civil Application NO. 8148 of 2004 before this Court which came to allowed (Coram: Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) vide order dated 3.3.2005 directing Municipal Corporation to reimburse medical expenses within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The copy of the above order dated 3.3.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No.8148/2004 is annexed with the petition. The petitioner has also relied on another decision dated 12.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Patel) in Special Civil Application No.13181/2007, where reliance was placed in the earlier decision of Special Civil Application No.8148/2004 and suitable directions were given to the Corporation for reimbursement of the medical expenses. 3. Shri Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in reimbursing the medical bill of Rs.91,948/- deserves to be set right, in as much as, the petitioner has infact undergone SCA/19115/2006 4/8 JUDGMENT Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (CABS) and above fact is not disputed. Not only that but learned advocate for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 has recommended sanction of reimbursement of the above bill as a special case and other two employees are already given benefit pursuant to the decisions passed by this Court in different Special Civil Applications as stated herein above. Learned advocate, therefore, submits that considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is also an employee of the respondent and almost similarly situated deserves equal treatment at the end and appropriate order be passed. 4. Shri Saurabh Mehta, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1 submit that even as per erstwhile policy of year 2000, the petitioner is not entitled since, the treatment of CABS was taken in the hospital not included in the list of hospitals approved by the corporation and as per the policy framed by the Corporation later on dated 26.5.2005, in case of emergency if the treatment is undergone by the employee concerned in other hospital which is approved by the State Government, such an employee will be entitled for reimbursement of the 50% of the amount excluding the room charges and, therefore, according to him the petitioner at the most would be entitled for 50% of the amount. At the same time, recommendations made by the school board as stated earlier is not disputed, for sanction of the reimbursement of medical bill of the petitioner as a SCA/19115/2006 5/8 JUDGMENT special case. No submissions are canvassed distinguishing facts of this case from cases decided by this Court. 5. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties to avoid the repetition, following observations made by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.8148/2004 are reproduced as under: “9.Having considered the rival submissions, it is clear that the petitioner had lodged her claim immediately upon her recovery. As noted earlier, the petitioner was released from hospital on 01-03-2000. She sent the necessary papers for claim of reimbursement on 01-04-2000. It is difficult to understand as to how her claim was belated. The petitioner after having applied for medical reimbursement had made series of representations right from June 2000 to November 2003. None of these representations were replied to. It would be most unjust and unequitable to reject a petition of this kind on the ground that the petitioner did not file the petition earlier. The petitioner was constantly representing to the authorities for grant of reimbursement. At no stage her request was formally turned down. I am, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the counsel for respondent No.1 that the petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay. 10. With respect to the objection regarding the claim also, I do not find any justification in the stand adopted by the respondents. The petitioner was suffering from serious heart ailment. Due to chest pain, she had to rush to the hospital. Further, investigations revealed that she would need urgent Bypass Surgery which was also performed. When the petitioner is battling for life and struggling to overcome her serious heart ailment and preparing herself for a major heart operation, it is not possible for her first to take permission from the authority before she gets herself properly treated. Under these circumstances, the respondents have not made out a case for denying the claim of the petitioner. It is, therefore, directed that the respondents shall process and sanction the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner as per the prevalent rates. The same shall be paid over to the petitioner within a period of 04 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Direct Service permitted.” 6. In the above cases learned Judge has considered SCA/19115/2006 6/8 JUDGMENT the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. Reported in AIR 1996 SC 1388 and State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga reported in AIR 1998 SC 1703, where objection of the concerned Government was turned down and an employee who suffered heart attack was directed to be paid medical expenses. 7. So far as latest decision dated 12.12.2007 passed in Special Civil Application NO. 13181/2007 is concerned in paras 9 and 10, learned Single Judge has observed as under: “9.In my view, since the date of the treatment is of the year 2004 and in any case, prior to the Resolution of the School Board, it will be required for the School Board to give the same treatment to the case of the petitioner as has been given, to the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.81487/04 and the reason being that the policy cannot be read as having retrospective policy. It may be that the amount might have become due prior to 26.05.2005, but merely because the payment is not made, cannot be a ground for applying the policy with the retrospective effect. Therefore, as the treatment was undertaken in the year 2004, it will be required for th respondent Corporation to reimburse the bill of the petitioner as per the policy prevailing in the year 2004 read with the above referred decision of this Court in the case of Pushpaben I. Mackwan (Supra). 10.In view of the above, the respondents are directed to procees and sanction the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner as per the prevalent rights then. It is further observed and directed that the petitioner shall be given the same treatment for the purpose of sanctioning of the medical bill and the rights SCA/19115/2006 7/8 JUDGMENT prevailing then as ordered by this Court in the above referred decision in the case of Pushpaben I. Mackwan. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed and appropriate reimbursement shall be made within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the order of this Court.” 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioner is similarly situated person and undisputedly the petitioner having undergone CABS, produced a certificate of the Cardiothoracic Surgeon and case is recommended by respondent No.1 and in the case of Pushpaben I.Mackwan v. Municipal School Board, Ahmedabad and Khokhar Mustafamiya Mirumiya v. Ahmedabad Municipal School Board & 1, the employee of the respondents were directed to be paid reimbursement of the medical bill for the expenses of CABS by this Court, a case is made out by the petitioner for medical reimbursement of the bill and respondents are directed to process and sanction the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner on par with Pushpaben I. Mackwan and Khokhar Mustafamiay Mirumiya (supra) and pass appropriate order. I deem it just and proper to direct the respondents to reimburse the amount as claimed by the petitioner within eight weeks from the receipt of the order. 9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. 10. Direct service is permitted. SCA/19115/2006 8/8 JUDGMENT [ANANT S. DAVE, J.] //smita//