IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2906 of 2006 DR.SHASHI PRABHA SINHA, wife of Dr. Shiva Kumar Sinha, resident of Shiva Niketan, Jhowa Kothi, Khanyarpur, Bhagalpur presently residing at 201, Shashi Kutir, Brindaban Kunj, Exhibition Road, Patna-1, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Health Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6. The Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, through Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, Bihar … Respondents ----------- 2. 25.8.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State and the University are present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “This is an application for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s commanding the respondents to reimburse the medical expenses amounting to Rs. 1,66,631/- (Rs. One lack sixty six thousand six hundred thirty one only) incurred by the petitioner in her open heart surgery (CABG) performed at Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, New Delhi when the petitioner was fighting 2 for her life because of her heart related problems and unstable Angina. And further to pass any other order/s deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” From the reading of the writ application, it would be clear that the petitioner, a teaching employee, who had retired while holding the post of Head of the Department, Sunderwati Mahila College, Bhagalpur on 30.11.2002, had undergone open heart surgery in which she had to spend a sum of Rs. 1,66,631/- by way of expenses towards treatment and journey. She had accordingly submitted her medical reimbursement bill annexing the relevant documents of her employer, the University. The University is said to have forwarded the said bills to the Health Department under letter of the Registrar dated 6.3.2001 and when payment of the said amount was refused by the Health Department on the ground that the University servants do not come within the purview of expression of the Government servant, the university is said to have taken up the issue with the Education Department as suggested by the Health 3 Department. It, however, appears that the payment of such medical bill was not made, whereafter the petitioner had to file this application on 1.3.2006. Though two counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the officials of the State of Bihar, namely, of the Health Department and the Education Department (Higher Education), there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the Bhagalpur University. In the counter affidavit that has been filed by the two functionaries of the State Govt. there is a categorical stand that the University employees are not entitled for payment of medical reimbursement from the funds of the State Government as they are not the Government servant. Counsel for the University who at the out set had taken a stand that the University was not required to file counter affidavit in this case in view of Annexures 4 and 5 to the writ application would now take a plea that in fact the Government was bound to pay such payment of medical bill in 4 view of the resolution of the Government of Bihar issued by the Education Department No. 4617-78 dated 4.9.1985. When the counsel was asked to point out that document even from the writ application so as to allow the University to disown its liability he could not find copy thereof at least in the writ application. Had the University filed its counter affidavit enclosing the aforementioned resolution dated 4.9.1985 this Court would have adjudicated the matter here and now by holding the State Govt. to be as the erring party. In absence thereof it would be difficult to now hold the State Govt. and its official guilty because they have categorically taken a stand in their two counter affidavits that the University servants are not the Government servant and as such, the Government is not bound to pay medical reimbursement bill of the petitioner. There is no difficulty in now coming to the conclusion that the University was the employer of the petitioner and therefore, the University had to pay this amount because the University has not filed counter affidavit denying that the employees 5 of the University are not entitled for medical reimbursement for their hospitalization. At this stage Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri would again point out that as a matter of fact the opinion of the Health Department was that the reimbursement of medical bill of the petitioner was not possible unless the Higher Education Department had got approval of the Council of Ministers. Mr. Keshri then points out that the petitioner had approached the Higher Education Department and therefore, the University will not be liable to pay the amount. Such submission of Mr. Keshri has been only noted for its being rejected. The University is the employer of the petitioner. The University was supposed to either pay the amount or get the amount arranged from the Government. If the Government has taken a stand that the petitioner was not entitled for such payment because she was not a Government servant and in fact only an employee of the University, it was the duty of the University to either 6 accept or reject the medical bill of the petitioner. That having been not done the University cannot take help of inter- departmental communication with the Health Department and the Education Department. It is not the case of the University, at least taken in any affidavit filed before this Court that the University does not owe the liability for making payment of medical bill of its such of employees who are hospitalized for their treatment. In that view of the matter, this Court would hold the University to be plainly and squarely responsible for making payment of the medical bill of the petitioner. Mr. Keshri then would also submit that he has not been served with the counter affidavit of the State. In view of the fact that Annexures 4 and 5 deal with only that stand which has been taken in the counter affidavit, no prejudice has been caused to Mr. Keshri on account of non-supply of the counter affidavit in Annexures 4 and 5. It is clarified that the petitioner being not a Govt. servant her medical bills were not passed and paid by the State Govt. This is 7 precisely the stand taken in the two counter affidavits of the State Government and thus if the University has not denied its liability by filing its counter affidavit, it cannot escape the liability as an employer. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Bhagalpur University to not only pay the medical reimbursement bill of the petitioner as claimed in this writ application but also interest over the said amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of entitlement to the date of its payment within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/