IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5462 of 2005 Dr.Dhirendra Kumar Singh, S/o-Vishwanath Singh, presently post as Lecturer, Department of Economics, Shershah College, Sasaram and resident of Mohalla- Chitragupta Mandi, Babu Bazar Ara, P.S.-Ara Town, Disrict-Bhojpur. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Director, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Vice-Chancellor, Vir Kuar Singh University, Ara. 4. The Registrar, Vir Kuar Singh University, Ara. 5. The Principal, Shershah College, Sasaram. 6. The Principal Secretary-cum-the Commissioner, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. –Respondents. ****** For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Nath. Mr. Waliur Rahman. For the State : Mr. Shankar Kumar, AC to AAG-15. For the University: Mr. A.B. Sinha. ****** 08 18.04.2011 The tragedy of University employees in relation to medical treatment is writ large by this case. It shows how insensitive and cold is the attitude of the State towards employees to whom they are responsible. Petitioner is a Lecturer in Shershah College, Sasaram under the Vir Kuar Singh University, Ara. The said college is a constituent college of the University. Petitioner had some cardiac problem. Local doctors referred the petitioner at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna. Petitioner immediately rushed there and was clinically examined. On 12.04.2004, the doctors at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna referred the petitioner to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi as it was a complicated case of coronery heart disease. It is not in dispute that - 2 - petitioner immediately made an application to the Vice-Chancellor of the University, which was duly forwarded through his Principal requesting for permission to go to AIIMS immediately and requested for funds as per the estimate received from AIIMS. This was duly submitted to the Vice-Chancellor on 16.04.2004. As is usual, there was no response probably because people wanted the sick people like the petitioner to die rather than save his life. As the illness was critical and complicated, petitioner rushed to AIIMS. He was immediately admitted and operated upon. He was in AIIMS between 30.04.2004 to 01.05.2004 and a reimbursement certificate for indoor patient was issued by the AIIMS duly signed by Dr. S. Seth, Assistant Professor, Department of Cardiology, as he then was. Petitioner’s life having been saved at his won cost, he returned and made representations without success to the University and even to the Chancellor. While making these representations, petitioner drew attention of the authorities to the Government resolution/circular no.4617-718 dated 04.09.1985 wherein the State Government has held that it is the University which is competent to take a decision for reimbursement of medical benefits to the employees after the bills are submitted. Petitioner, having been fed up of running from pillar to post all his plea falling to ground, filed a writ petition for a direction to the State and the University to reimburse his medical expenses. At first the consistent stand of the State had been that University employees not being State Government employees State Government had absolutely nothing to do with the claim of medical - 3 - reimbursement as made by the petitioner. University pointed out that University has no funds to its own, unless the State Government is agreed to reimburse, the University could not pay the amount. Virtually on both sides, that is, the State and the University, there was a denial of liability to pay alternatively. It was submitted that the petitioner has not followed the procedure and, as such, would not get the reimbursement to the Court. It clearly appeared to be a case of dichotomy because following a procedure for claiming reimbursement arise only if there was a liability to pay and not otherwise. The liability to pay itself was disputed. At this stage, this Court directed the State to produce the resolution no.4617-718 dated 04.09.1985. Now, at last the same has been produced. The decision of the State with effect from 01.04.1985 is that teachers of University and the constituent Colleges would be entitled to the same treatment in respect of medical reimbursements as is given to the State Government employees. This belies and belittles both the State and the University’s stand that they were not entitled to reimburse medical expenses. Then, it clearly states that in deserving cases medical reimbursement for treatment outside the State would also be given. This is totally contrary to the unashamed stand taken both by the University and the State that they were not obliged to give medical reimbursement to the teachers of the University much less like the State Government. Once this is now settled then petitioner surely becomes entitled to be considered for medical reimbursement because he was referred by the private doctor - 4 - to the Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna and then referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, a Central Government super specialty hospital, where he was duly treated. At this stage, both State and the University again raised the plea that even if the petitioner was otherwise entitled that he had not followed the bureaucratic procedure in that regard, they were not obliged to reimburse the petitioner. The bureaucratic procedure is as if a person is seeking leave to go on a vacation. It is not designed for meeting urgent medical need. In this regard, I can only quote few lines from a judgment of this Court in similar case, though of a State Government employee, in the case of Biresh Chandra Chatterji Vs. State of Bihar and others since reported in 2008(1) PLJR 394, which is quoted hereunder:- “…..In other words, what the State wants to submit is that however critical the illness may be, however emergent the treatment may be, a person must take a bureaucratic approach and wait for bureaucratic approval in the hope that death may delay itself pending approval. If they do otherwise, they shall suffer the consequences of not being favoured with medical reimbursement. I am amazed at this bureaucratic approach of the welfare Government….” - 5 - Now, firstly, all I can say is that upon return from Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna and having been referred to AIIMS, petitioner made an application to the Vice-Chancellor through his Principal. If petitioner was required to confirm to certain procedure, he should have been told immediately. There was no response except deathly silence. The case being complicated cardiac case petitioner rushed to AIIMS and was operated. Now, it is said that as the bureaucratic hunger for sticking to procedure was not followed, the petitioner lost its right of reimbursement. In my view, petitioner did all that was required of him to do but authorities kept silent and did not respond. It is their funeral and not the petitioner. Petitioner cannot be denied of his reimbursement on this flimsy cold hearted bureaucratically. Before parting, I may note the procedure that is expecting of a University employee who seeks reimbursement of medical expenses of such cases as has been explained by the learned counsel for the State. I am doing so only to show that the procedure is so designed to kill the claims, if not claimant, as noticed above, in the decision of the State Government dated 04.09.1985 with effect from 01.04.1985, the teachers of Universities are entitled to medical reimbursement just like State Government. The procedure is, as being explained, that first the teacher must make an application to the University (the Vice-Chancellor), the Vice-Chancellor must then forward to Department of Human Resources Development, - 6 - Government of Bihar, the Department in its discretion may sanction medical treatment or it may then recommend the case to the Health Department. The Health Department may then sanction the treatment or may order for examination by a Medical Board, in either case it would send its recommendation to the Department of Human Resources Development, who may then sent it to the Vice-Chancellor for the needful action, the Vice-Chancellor would then request the Department of Health to constitute the Medical Board, which would then examine the teacher and sent its recommendation to the Department of Health, who would then consider and then may send it to the Department of Human Resources Development for onward transmission to the University. Any teacher who survives this bureaucratic procedure can go outside the State for medical treatment. That is most unsatisfactory and unlike of a bureaucratically elected welfare Government/State. The procedure has to be first made known to the teachers at large and, secondly, it must be simple and straight way, keeping in view that we are dealing with health cases, which more often than not which emergent and it is only because that this type of cases are referred outside the State for treatment. Till a proper procedure is laid down by the State, in the interregnum, I direct that any teacher requiring any medical treatment outside the State must make an application to the Registrar of the University, who shall without delay asked the Chief Medical Officer- cum-Civil Surgeon to immediately without delay constitute a Medical - 7 - Board to examine the person and make a recommendation about the nature of treatment and the place of treatment outside the Bihar. The place of treatment could be more than one. Once this recommendation is received from the Medical Board so constituted, the Registrar would then immediately without delay communicate the same to the person and, upon treatment being done, the University would immediately upon bills being submitted reimburse the petitioner without waiting for the money coming from the State Government. The State Government would then be obliged to reimburse the University of the said amount. Till proper procedure is laid down, this procedure would be followed and it would be incumbent upon the Department of Human Resources Development to circulate this to all Universities immediately for communicating it to the teaching paternity. In cases of emergent nature where it may not be advisable to wait for the Medical Board then the recommendation can be obtained from Government doctor of a Government Hospital or Health Centre. A word of caution that while laying down the procedure the Government must keep in mind that they are not dealing with any other bureaucratic matter but health related issue which must be simple and least cumbersome but also have adequate checks to prevent misuse but those checks must not super impose itself to defeat the purpose. Thus, in view of my finding as aforesaid, I direct to immediately reimburse the petitioner of Rs.1,18,205/-, as duly certified by All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. The bills whereof have already been submitted to the University. If the - 8 - reimbursement is not made within one month from today, the same would have to be paid to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date it was due till the date it is paid. State Government in its turn would be obliged to reimburse the entire amount to the University or made adequate provisions for payment to the University. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)