Civil Writ Petition No.3845 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 25, 2011 Birmati ...Petitioner VERSUS Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Rajesh Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sudhir Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Jai Bhagwan, the husband of the petitioner and a Lineman with the respondents, suffered from Multi System Atrophy (Cerebeller Ataxia, Parkinsonism & Dysautonomia). He was taking treatment from PGIMS, Rohtak prior to 11.8.2003. Thereafter he had been visiting AIIMS, New Delhi and was indoor as well as outdoor patient. On 25.5.2004, he suddenly suffered attack and was rushed to AIIMS, New Delhi. Due to heavy rush and his critical condition, he Civil Writ Petition No.3845 of 2009 : 2 : had to be shifted to Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre, New Delhi as there was no bed available at AIIMS. Jai Bhagwan accordingly submitted his medical bills for reimbursement of the amount, which he spent while taking treatment from Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre. The husband of the petitioner, thus, had remained as an indoor patient from 5.6.2004 to 10.6.2004 and continued with the treatment for nearly a year. He was also given a certificate to show that this is a chronic disease. Copy of the same is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-8. Chief Medical Officer, Sonepat, however, has viewed that this disease is not a chronic disease. Despite repeated requests and after serving a demand notice, the respondents did not disburse the amount of ` 22,322/-, which, the petitioner had incurred on treatment of her husband. It may be significant to notice here that the husband of the petitioner is no more. The petitioner, therefore, has now filed this writ petition for direction to the respondents to reimburse this amount, which was spent on treatment of her husband. In the reply filed, it is conceded that the claim for reimbursement was submitted showing that the husband of the petitioner was outdoor patient. The amount accordingly was not paid as per the Medical Reimbursement Rules. It is also stated that the deceased employee was verbally asked to submit certificate from Chief Medical Officer that the disease was chronic in nature, whereas the Chief Medical Officer has opined that it is not such a disease, which is listed as a chronic disease. It is stated that if the disease is a chronic one, then the outdoor patient is not entitled to medical reimbursement payment as per the rules. Civil Writ Petition No.3845 of 2009 : 3 : On similar lines, the submissions are repeated by the counsel for the respondents to dispute the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to reiterate the claim and to point out the legal position as has been enunciated by this court in the case of Santosh Phogat Vs. State of Haryana, 1994(4) SCT 478. It is viewed by the court that the outdoor treatment, which is integral part of indoor treatment has also to be reimbursed even if the employee is getting fixed medical allowance. Similar view has been reiterated in Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 1999(4) RSJ 386 (P&H). The counsel for the respondents was directed to have instructions, if the respondents would wish to release the medical reimbursement in view of the law settled by this court. The counsel, however, states that the court may decide the issue. The approach by the respondents in not following the settled legal position certainly cannot be appreciated. Once a law is settled by a judgment of this court on more than one occasion, the same would need to be followed. Asking the courts to decide the issues which are settled not only results in increasing the litigation burden of courts but leads to wasting the time of the courts. This must be brought to the notice of the Chairman of the Board, so as to take some measure to insure that the verdicts given by the courts are followed. I have been compelled to make the above observations in view of line of submissions pursued before me as it is stated that responsible persons in the office of respondents are not prepared to accept responsibility to pass an order, even if the position is settled Civil Writ Petition No.3845 of 2009 : 4 : as per the judgments. Once this court has expressed a view on some position of law, then no authority should be in a position to take a contrary view and deny the same forcing the people to approach the courts again and again. The submission that the disease has to be chronic for grant of reimbursement for an outdoor patient is apparently misplaced and misconceived. If the late husband of the petitioner had been treated at AIIMS, then he would have got the amount reimbursed irrespective of the nature of disease. How then the nature of disease can make difference. The question is of a reimbursement of the amount spent, which is payable without referring to the nature of disease. The issue is not how and for what cause person has to spend money on his treatment. The core issue is of reimbursing the amount to which an employee is entitled to seek reimbursement, which he has spent. This is an welfare measure on the part of the Government and the authorities, like the respondent-board. This must be truly and sincerely discharged. I do not see any justification of the stand and attitude adopted by the Board. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Direction is hereby issued to the respondents to release this amount within a period of two weeks from the receipt of copy of this order. Since the amount has been withheld for considerable long period during which even person has died, I hold the petitioner entitled to the cost of this petition, which is assessed at `10,000/-. February 25, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE