1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6992/2007. : : Tarsem Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 28.8.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.H.S.Bikarwar for the petitioner. Ms.Sudesh Kasana, Dy.Govt.Counsel for the State. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the respondents be directed to reimburse the medical bills submitted by the petitioner for treatment of his wife. The petitioner is a retired Government servant and is entitled to such reimbursement as per the Rajasthan State Pensioners Medical Concessions Scheme. Mr.H.S.Bikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's wife Smt. Satya Devi went from Bharatpur to New Delhi to meet her son Arun Kumar where she suddenly fell ill and due to emergency she has to be admitted in Kalra Hospital, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi where she remained hospitalized from 6.12.2006 to 13.12.2006. Admission and discharge ticket of that hospital 2 and the medical bills have been produced according to which Rs.38,093/- was paid by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted application for reimbursement of these bills which was declined by the respondents. It is contended that after examining the wife of the petitioner the Doctors of Kalra Hospital, New Delhi found that she was a patient of problem of pain chest (L) side associated with nausea/vomiting/ghabrahat/restlessness and she found suffering from CAD/Acute Ant.Wall MI (NT), LVEF=40%, UTI. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Aji Ram Dagur (DB Civil Special Appeal No.1206/07) decided on 11.4.2008 and judgments of learned Single Judges of this Court in Gajraj Chand Bhandari Vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Civil Writ Petition No.5977/1995) decided on 19.8.2002 and in Bhagwan Sahay Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.7963/2005) decided on 27.1.2006. Ms.Sudesh Kasana, learned Deputy Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and argued that according to the Rajasthan State Pensioners Medical Concessions Scheme the medical expenses could be reimbursed if the treatment was taken from the scheduled hospitals, Kalra Hospital, New Delhi where the petitioner got 3 his wife treated was not included in the schedule and, therefore, medical bills could not be reimbursed to him. It is further argued that the petitioner in order to get medical facility was required to renew his medical diary at every year but the petitioner did not get renewal of his medical diary. Moreover petitioner's wife herself is a pensioner, she can claim reimbursement from one place only. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, I find that due to sudden health problem which the petitioner's wife faced when she had gone to Delhi to meet her son, she was immediately rushed to Kalra Hospital, New Delhi. She had complaint of pain chest (L) side associated with nausea/vomiting/ghabrahat/restlessness and she found suffering from CAD/Acute Ant.Wall MI (NT), LVEF=40%, UTI. In all the aforesaid cases, which have been cited, treatment was taken by the pensioners in emergent circumstances like this, and their medical bills have been ordered to be reimbursed. However, in this case, the learned Government Counsel has raised two additional arguments that the petitioner has not got his medical diary renewed and that the petitioner's wife is also a retired Government servant and, therefore, only one would be entitled to claim reimbursement 4 and not both. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is, thereafter, directed that the respondents be reimbursed medical bills of the petitioner by deducting the necessary renewal fees of the medical diary to the date. However, it is made clear that the petitioner and his wife would be entitled to get reimburse of bills only once. In the result, this writ petition is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid directions. Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date copy of the judgment is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.26.