IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1466 /2009 Decided on:3.7.2009 Dr. B.R. Chouhan. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. For the petitioner : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. and Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy.A.G. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The petitioner is working as a Medical Officer with the respondent- department since 1982. He was detected with Renal Tumour in the year 1999. His left kidney was surgically removed in the month of March, 1999 at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. In the year 2007, it came to the light that the right kidney of the petitioner was also afflicted with cancer. He is seeking regular treatment from Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Research Centre, New Delhi. He was advised on 16.4.2008 to take medicine (Student). He purchased the medicine from the pharmaceutical supplier M/s AARK Pharmaceutical, New Delhi. He submitted medical reimbursement bills with respondent No. 4, who is the drawing and disbursing officer. He submitted bills Ex. P-1 to P-4 for the months of May, June, July, and August, 2008, respectively and P-11 for the month of December, 2008 amounting to Rs. 8,52,302-00. However, only an amount of Rs. 65,302/- was sanctioned. Respondent No.4 raised the objection “payment not allowed due to retail invoice/bill”. He made inquiries from the respondents why the reimbursement was not being made. He was apprised that the same could not be reimbursed since the petitioner has failed to supply the invoice/bills. He also furnished cash receipts to facilitate the process of reimbursement. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner was not sanctioned the entire amount, which he has spent while purchasing medicines for treatment of his ailment. The matter was listed in the morning session. We have heard Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate and the learned Advocate General at length. We are prima facie of the view that respondent No.4 has raised frivolous objections while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement. The non-sanctioning of the bills, we can safely, presume has caused great agony to a patient, who is suffering from cancer. Respondent No.4 has shown insensitivity while dealing with the matter. He himself is a Doctor. He was also present in person. We have heard him. His explanation was that on the bills endorsement was required to be made by he seller that he has received the money. The matter being grave and serious required immediate attention to mitigate the hardship of the petitioner, who is in the dire need of money. The petitioner has right 3 enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to get the best medical care. In order to find out a solution, we requested the learned Advocate General to secure the presence of the Principal Secretary (Health) in the afternoon session. Mr. Deepak Shanan, Principal Secretary (Health) was present in the Court. He after going through the documents was of the view that the reimbursement should have been ordered with promptitude. We were impressed with the manner in which the Principal Secretary (Health) conducted himself in the Court. He was absolutely sure about the case and the legal position as well. He has shown sensitivity while projecting the case of the State before us. His first hand impression was that the Treasury has raised the objection. However, when it was pointed out that it is not the Treasury who has raised the objection, but it is respondent No.4, who has raised the objection, he immediately undertook to release the amount due to the petitioner. We appreciate this gesture on the part of Mr. Deepak Shanan, Principal Secretary (Health) and place our appreciation on the record. However, while appreciating the stand of Mr. Deepak Shanan, we disapprove the manner in which respondent No.4 has dealt with the matter. Respondent No.4 was supposed to be responsive and sensitive towards the entire issue instead of adopting a callous and inhuman approach. Every citizen must respect the life of fellow citizen. The life is a greatest creation of the God and we must preserve it. Since the Principal Secretary (Health) has assured the Court that the amount shall be released, in these circumstances it shall not open to the Treasury to raise any objection. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the respondents are directed to reimburse the amount to the petitioner on the basis of Annexures P-1 to P-4 for the months of May, June, July and 4 August, 2008 and P-11 submitted in the month of December, 2008. The petitioner is in dire need of money. In these circumstances we expect that money shall be released to him within 72 hours from now. With these observations the petition is disposed of. No costs. (R.B. Misra), J. 3.7. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*