IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6831 of 2007 Dr.Shail Kumari, D/o late Ganga Prasad Singh, resident of Mohalla Shaketpuri, Musallahpur Bazar Samittee, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Sultanganj, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Human Resources Department, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The Director, Higher Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Gaya 4. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya 5. The Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya 6. The Principal Arvind Mahila College, Patna … Respondents ---------------------------------- 5. 19.9.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. In this writ application the petitioner has made a prayer for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by her in undergoing bypass surgery in All India Institute of Medical Sciences on 20.8.2002 involving an expenditure of Rs. 1,71,422/-. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that such an operation of the petitioner had to be performed under emergent circumstances and therefore, even if there be any procedural lapse as per the Government circular dated 4.9.1985 (Annexure ‘A’ to the counter affidavit), that needs to be condoned, inasmuch as there is no dispute of meeting such an expenditure on the treatment of the petitioner and that too in the Government hospital. The petitioner is a teacher in a constituent College of Magadh University and thus, a University servant in terms of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. The entire expenditure for payment of salary, emolument, retirement benefit and other monetary benefits for meeting service condition of such teacher of a constituent College is met from the funds of the State 2 Government. The University has also got no problem in making payment of such amount, inasmuch as after verification of the claim of the petitioner it has found the same to be absolutely within the parameters of permissible service condition, wherein a University servant alike a Government servant is also entitled for reimbursement of the medical expenditure, of course subject to restrictions imposed in the circular of the Education Department, contained in Memo No. 4617-718 dated 4.9.1985 (Annexure ‘A’). The difficulty for the University, however, as would appear from its counter affidavit, is that the Government has not released any amount on the head of medical expenditure nor has it given any instruction as to from which source the University will make payment of the amount of medical expenditure incurred by the petitioner. Counsel for the University says that of late the Government has been issuing orders/ instructions that any amount beyond the salary and/or retirement benefit has to be paid by the University from its own self generated funds. Of course, for such a constituent college taken over by the University there is no documentary evidence forming part of the records of this case and therefore, this Court would not like to make any specific direction in this regard but then it is made clear that if the Government does not allow the constituent Colleges to fix their own tuition fee and/or generate its own funds by giving autonomy it cannot at the same time impose financial liability for meeting out expenditure on the service condition of the employees of the University. As with regard to the stand of the State that the 3 University was already given direction that if the petitioner was working against the sanctioned post, she would be entitled for payment of her expenditure in bypass surgery, the University has already found the petitioner working against a sanctioned post and there is no dispute on this score. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Director, Higher Education, to ensure that whatever legal formalities have to be completed for sanctioning and making payment of medical bill of the petitioner must be completed as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order such post facto sanction, if any, required in terms of the Government circular dated 4.9.1985, must be accorded by the State Government inasmuch as there is no dispute that such an expenditure has been made in All India Institute of Medical Science, Delhi, a prestigious Government hospital. The Director, Higher Education, will also ensure that the required amount is also released within the aforesaid period of three months so that its payment is made by the University to the petitioner immediately without any undue delay. Before parting with, this Court feels it necessary to direct the Director, Higher Education that not only budgetary allocation should be made for meeting such medical expenditure of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the University against the sanctioned post but the State Government should also prescribe some fixed criteria and procedure laying down the norms for settlement of such medical claim of the teaching and non-teaching 4 staff of the University and its constituent Colleges. It would be advisable for the Government, in continuation to its circular dated 4.9.1985, as contained in Annexure ‘A’ to the counter affidavit, to issue a fresh guideline enabling the University and its employees including those of the Constitutional Colleges to be fully aware of the requirement to be fulfilled by them for reimbursement of their medical claim. This Court expects that the Director, Higher Education, will draw attention of the State Government so that in future a similar problem as in this case, where the petitioner had to wait for receiving payment of amount of her medical expenditure for a period over nine years, is not repeated. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Director, Higher Education for its strict immediate compliance. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/