IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 291 of 2005 Date of decision: 24.7.2008 Union of India and another Petitioners. Versus D.C. Joshi and others. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. For the respondents No.1 to 6: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This petition is directed against the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 1082/HP/2003 whereby the original application filed by the respondents has been allowed and the petitioner-department has been restrained from recovering the amount already paid to the respondents by way of medical reimbursement for expenses incurred by them in respect of vaccination of injection Engrex-B. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents who are employees of the Labour Bureau, Shimla, got themselves and their family members 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 vaccinated against Hepatitis ‘B’ by getting injection of Engrex-B. They submitted their claims for medical reimbursement. These claims were allowed and the amount incurred by them as expenses of such injunction was paid to them. Thereafter, the department started recovery proceedings in respect of the amount paid to the respondents. The main plea was that the audit has raised an objection that only the amount spent on treatment could be reimbursed and not the amount spent for vaccination. The employees filed the original application, which has been allowed. Hence, the present writ petition. We have heard Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the petitioners and Shri Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel for the respondents. The main plank of the argument of Shri Sandeep Sharma is that according to the instructions of the Government of India only the amount spent on the treatment of the disease is to be reimbursed. It is not denied that amount spent on treatment of chronic active hepatitis is covered under the medical reimbursement policy but the case set up is that the office memorandum only governs the amount spent on treatment and not on prevention. The relevant portion of the office memorandum reads as follows:- “In continuation of this Ministry’s O.M. of even number, dated the 15th May, 1996 and O.M. 3 No.S.14025/29/97-MS, dated the 25th September, 1997 (Sl. Nos. 95 and 105 of Swamy’s Annual, 1996 and 1997 respectively) on the subject mentioned above, the undersigned is directed to say that it has been decided to include the treatment of Chronic Active Hepatitis, subset of Hepatitis-B infection in the list of major diseased in Section 3 (Treatment of Special Diseases) of CS (MA) Rules, 1944. Medical Advance for the treatment of this disease may sanctioned as indicated in para (3)(ii) in the O.M. of even number, dated 15.5.1996.” There is well know saying that prevention is better than cure. Prevention of a disease is also management of an illness. Prevention will cost much less than the money spent on treatment. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners is not at all logical. It is better to spend a smaller amount to prevent the disease than to spend a larger amount to treat the disease after it has occurred. Prevention of a disease is a part of the treatment of the disease. We also noted that though a similar relief was granted by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal to employee of the Labour Bureau, Shimla, in O.A. No. 63/HP/2002, this decision has not been challenged by the Union of India. The Union of India cannot be permitted to follow two different policies with regard to its employees. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 24th July, 2008 ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. ™ 4