R.S.A.No. 579 of 1988 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 579 of 1988 Date of decision : 30.6.2010 State of Punjab etc. ....Appellants Versus Smt. Ratni Devi ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. R.D.Bawa, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The respondent-plaintiff filed a medical reimbursement claim in respect of the hospitalization/treatment of her late husband at the PGI. He was in employment of the Education Department, Punjab. The reimbursement plea was declined by the D.P.I., Punjab, The suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court which did otherwise advise the Government to sympathetically consider relaxation of rule in favour of the plaintiff-respondent as a special case. In appeal, the finding was reversed by the learned Ist Appellate Court, vide order dated 23.10.1987 The State of Punjab is in appeal against it. The essential premise for negativing the claim for medical reimbursement was that the patient was not forwarded by the C.M.O. concerned to the PGI. This is what weighed with the DPI. The learned Trial Court affirmed that view. However, the learned Ist Appellate court R.S.A.No. 579 of 1988 -2- **** obtained a different view by recording instructions-related finding to the effect that Government employees posted at Chandigarh, Rohtak, Patila and Amritsar were allowed to approach the Medical Superintendent of the specialist institution directly without prior approval of the CMO/Director Health Services. Relevant instructions dated 23-24/3/1965 are available on record as Ex. D1. The relevant part of the instructions is extracted here for the facility of reference:- “The Govt. employees stationed at Chandigarh, Rohtak, Patiala and Amritsar would be allowed to approach the Medical Superintendent of the specialist institution direct, without a prior approval of Chief Medical Officer/Director, Health Services. This concession will be available to out door as well as in door patients.” The learned State Counsel argues that forwarding of the employees requiring medical treatment through C.M.O. is appropriate because it puts the department in the know of requirement of the employees on establishment. I have not been able to persuade myself to find any force in the plea. The consideration of request of the indicated category (for medical reimbursement) must be relate-able to the instructions issued by the competent authority. In this case, the instructions have been placed on record as Ex. D1. The learned Ist Appellate Court noticed in the course of para 7 of the judgment, facts which invite the applicability of the instructions aforementioned to the deceased-husband of the plaintiff- respondent. The learned State Counsel is not in a position to aver that there is any factual inaccuracy in the fact-based observations made by the R.S.A.No. 579 of 1988 -3- **** learned Ist Appellate Court in the course thereof. Even otherwise, the instructions issued by any competent authority in case of indicate category must not wish away the aspect of urgency-related compassion. If an employee has a problem which merits attention at a specialist institution forthwith, it would be impractical and illogical to expect that the employee or the person attending upon him would first undergo the ordeal of making a plea to the CMO or the DPI. It is time we start appreciating instructions of the averred category in proper prospective. Ours is a public welfare State. Health-related welfare of the employee must be foremost in the mind of the employer. There is no substantial question of law involved in this Regular Second Appeal at the hands of the State and the appeal is, even otherwise, denuded of merit. The appeal shall stand negatived accordingly. In view of the proven position that disbursement of the reimbursement charges had been denied to the respondent-plaintiff-widow for a period as long as 29 years, she shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount aforementioned. The reimbursement charges shall be disbursed within one month from today. June 30, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE