1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5851/2006 (Bhupinder Singh Saluja Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 27.8.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. G.R. Goyal, for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Dy. Govt. Counsel. The application for early hearing is allowed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is retired government employee and in the month of May, 2006, the petitioner along with his wife Smt. Daljeet Kaur went to Mohali (Punjab) to visit their close relatives. All of sudden, his wife complained chest pain on 6.5.2006, therefore, in emergent situation, she was advised to take treatment at nearby hospital, therefore, relatives of the petitioner immediately rushed to Fortis Hospital, 2 Mohali where the wife of the petitioner was attended by Dr. T.S. Mahant and petitioner was advised to get the patient admitted for treatment as she was facing serious heart problem. In emergent situation, the wife of the petitioner was admitted to the Fortis Hospital and thereafter, she was treated and her coronary angiography was done but unfortunately, she died after taking treatment from the said hospital. The petitioner being retired government employee filed an application along with medical bills for reimbursement for the treatment of his wife at Fortis Hospital, Mohali and a sum of Rs.2,51,499/- were claimed by the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the scheme of the Government for medical treatment, the petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of the medical bills of his wife. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. R. Vivekananda Swamy, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 328 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court as held as under : “While exercising the power of relaxation, the authority must act judiciously keeping in mind the purport and object thereof. Considerations therefor, although may not partake a mathematical 3 exactable but should always be fair and reasonable. Although it may not be possible for an employee to enforce a purported right on the premise that another person had obtained reimbursement for a similar kind of treatment, ordinarily fair procedure envisages a broad similarity. If any person has been shown any undue favor that may not by itself be a ground to favour another but when such a contention is raised the Stae should be able to demonstrate a fair treatment. It is possible to draw a distinction on the basis of several factors, emergent situation being one of them.” In addition to above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his case is covered under the judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in DB Civil Special Appeal No.858/2007 (State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Mithu Lal Gupta) decided on 24.3.2008 in which it has been held that according to Pension Scheme even retired government employee is entitled for medical reimbursement at the rate which is prescribed by the Government because in emergent condition the wife of the petitioner took treatment outside State, therefore, petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of medical bills for treatment of his wife. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reimburse the medical bills submitted by the 4 petitioner for treatment of his wife in accordance with the Scheme framed by the State Government for reimbursement of the medical bills to the retired government employee and the State Government is directed to finalize the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and while doing so, the aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court shall be taken into account. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun