CWP 9719/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No. 9719/2006 Dashrath Bairathi Versus State & Anr Date of Order ::: 18/02/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. RL Agrawal, for petitioner Mr. SN Kumawat, Addl. Adv. Gen., for respondent-State. Petitioner while working as Lower Division Clerk in Collectorate Shri Ganganagar, (respondents' Office) visited place of his younger brother on some social ceremonies at Jaipur, alongwith his family members. As alleged, during his visit (supra) on 05/08/04, his wife (Smt. Shashi Bairathi) felt acute chest pain and her condition became deteriorated so she was admitted on 05/08/04 in Tongia Hospital Jaipur where she remained indoor patient in Intensive Care Unit - in course whereof, she was diagnosis of serious heart ailment and advised of open heart surgery forthwith and accordingly was discharged from hospital on 06/08/04 as is evident from discharge certificate (Ann.1); and since her condition was serious & deteriorating, was immediately shifted to Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi, which according to the petitioner is a referral hospital duly recognised by Government of India CWP 9719/06 //2// outside State of Rajasthan, where also she was admitted in Intensive Care Unit Ward and upon diagnosis, found her suffering from coronary artery disease, unstable angina, double vessel disease and type-2 diabetes mellitus, for which she was surgically operated on 16/08/04 as is evident from doctor's prescription dt.10/08/04 (Ann.2) and in all incurred expenses of Rs. 1,95,500/- for which petitioner raised claim of reimbursement as is evident from his application dt.29/08/04 (Ann.9) and since no action was taken, he got legal notice (Ann.12) served and thereafter approached this Court by way of instant petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that there was an emergency and critical condition of petitioner's wife and as per diagnosis report, she was subjected to emergency requiring surgical operation at the earliest possible, in such circumstance, it was decided to get him admitted in Escorts Hospital, N.Delhi, where she was got surgically operated for her ailment as is evident from discharge certificate (Ann.7) incurring expenses of Rs.1,95,500/- as per medical bills submitted to respondents; as such in light of Rule 12 of Rules, 1970, medical bills are required to be reimbursed in his favour. In CWP 9719/06 //3// support, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra K. Kalra (Special Appeal (Writ)-1276/06 decided on 17/01/08) (2008(2) WLC 430). Respondent's Counsel submits that petitioner got surgically operated in a hospital being not recognised/approved by Government, medical bills are not reimbursable under Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (“Rules, 1970”). I have considered contentions of both the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. As regards medical bills reimbursement, Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. R.Vivekananda Swamy (2008(3) SCC 328) and State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Savitri Upadhyay (Appeal (Civil) 2336/08 decided on 01/04/08) while examining similar controversy, observed : “18. In view of the aforementioned settled principles of law there cannot be any doubt that the Rules regarding reimbursement of medical claim of an employee when he obtains treatment from a hospital of his choice can be made limited. Such a rule furthermore having been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India constitutes conditions of service in terms whereof on the one hand the employee would be granted the facility of medical aid CWP 9719/06 //4// free of cost from the recognized government hospitals and on the other hand, he at his opinion, may get himself treated from other recognised hospitals/ institutions subject of course to the conditions that the reimbursement by the State therefor would be limited.” Division Bench of this Court has examined scheme of Rules, 1970 in State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra K. Kalra (supra) wherein it has been observed that in an emergent situation, the Government cannot insist upon servant to get himself treated at Govt. recognised institution/hospital. Division Bench of this Court (Per Hon. RM Lodha, J.) observed : “17. That the respondent (writ petitioner) is entitled to the reimbursement at the rates applicable in the Government recognised hospital is clearly established. However, we find that the Single Judge has directed the reimbursement to the respondent (writ petitioner) as per the bills submitted by him. This direction needs clarification. If the medical bills submitted by the writ petitioner exceeds the rates of the recognised/approved Govt institutions/ hospitals, needless to say that his claim shall be restricted to such rates. On the other hand, if medical bills submitted by the writ petitioner are less than the rates that are applicable to the treatment at the recognised/approved Govt. institutions /hospitals obviously the writ petitioner shall be reimbursed all the medical bills submitted by him.“ Thus, issue raised in instant case is no longer res integra. CWP 9719/06 //5// In instant case, once wife of petitioner while visit to Jaipur alongwith family members felt acute chest pain and her condition became deteriorated, for which immediate medical aid was required and was admitted in Tongia Hospital, Jaipur & Escorts Hospital, New Delhi, to get her surgically operated. In view of material on record, emergent condition of petitioner's wife cannot be doubted and in such circumstances, State Government ought to have exercised powers U/r 12 of Rules, 1970 by allowing claim for reimbursement of medical bills at the rates approved for Government recognised hospitals. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, petitioner is held entitled for reimbursement of medical bills for treatment of his wife at the rates applicable in the Government recognised hospital (SMS Hospital, Jaipur) alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date medical bills were submitted till actual payment. All exercise in compliance of this order, be completed within three months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/FRB/p.5/9719CW06-18FbRm12.doc