IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 3812 of 2008 Date of decision: 7.12.2010. Subhash Chand Sood …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The petitioner has prayed for quashing of office memo dated 19.8.1994 Annexure A-1 restricting the medical expenses at the rates of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi(AIIMS) and Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh(PGI) with further prayer that petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of actual medical expenses amounting to Rs.46583.72 incurred by the petitioner. The rejection of medical reimbursement bills of the petitioner for remaining amount may be held illegal and proposed recovery ordered against the petitioner may also be held illegal. The respondents may be directed to sanction the remaining medical expenses bills within a time bound period alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The petitioner has prayed exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- from the respondents. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 2. The brief facts of the case are that daughter of the petitioner developed some ailment and she was admitted in Indus Hospital, Shimla for treatment on 20.9.1994 and was operated on 21.9.1994. The Indus hospital had estimated medical expenses Rs.40,000/- for the treatment of the daughter of petitioner. The petitioner applied for medical advance and a sum of Rs.30000/- was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, which was utilized by him on the treatment of his daughter. The daughter of the petitioner was discharged from Indus hospital on 30.9.1994. 3. The government has recognized Indus hospital at par with other government hospitals, but the medical reimbursement has been arbitrarily restricted at the prevailing rates of AIIMS, and PGI, vide office memo dated 19.8.1994 Annexure A-1. The petitioner had submitted duly verified bills of Indus hospital in October 1995 for necessary sanction and payment of Rs.46283.72. The petitioner had spent about Rs.16000/- in excess of the medical advance. The respondents have arbitrarily restricted the medical claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of Rs.9693/- and the remaining claim of Rs.35554/- was rejected vide letter dated 18.2.1995. 4. The petitioner kept on agitating the matter for sanction of medical claim bills, but without any positive result. On the contrary, the respondents worked out the recovery against the petitioner of the amount paid as medical advance over and above Rs.9693/- and as per letter dated 19.2.1996 Himachal Emporium was directed to …3… recover the amount from February 1996 salary onwards. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the petition. 5. The petition has been contested by respondent No. 1 by filing reply. It has been admitted that government has recognized Indus hospital for reimbursement subject to the condition that reimbursement will be restricted to the existing rates of PGI, or whichever is less vide order dated 19.8.1994. It has been denied that there is any arbitrariness in restricting the reimbursement as per the rates of PGI and AIIMS, It has been submitted that keeping in view financial position, the government has extended the facility to its employees/ pensioners. It has been stated that petitioner is not entitled for total amount incurred by him on the treatment undergone by his daughter in Indus hospital, but he is only entitled to the reimbursement as per orders of the government. 6. The respondent No. 2 has also contested the petition by filing separate reply. It has been submitted that medical reimbursement has been given to petitioner according to the notification of Himachal Pradesh Government Health Department, which is applicable to the employees of the Corporation. It has been stated that medical treatment bill was submitted by the petitioner duly verified by Indus hospital, but reimbursement can be made according to the rules and notification of the State government. The petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of Rs.9693/-. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioner in the petition is that Indus hospital has been approved by the government of Himachal Pradesh for medical …4… reimbursement bills. The daughter of the petitioner was hospitalized and operated in the Indus hospital and hospital has verified the bills amounting to Rs.46,283.72. The medical advance of Rs.30,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, which was utilized by him on the treatment of his daughter. The petitioner had spent about Rs.16000/- in excess of the medical advance. Only a sum of Rs.9693/- has been allowed for reimbursement and rest of the claim of the petitioner regarding medical reimbursement has been rejected by the respondents. It has been submitted that government has arbitrarily fixed the ceiling of medical expenses at par with the rates of AIIMS and PGI. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that such ceiling is arbitrary and is not sustainable. The petitioner is entitled to actual expenses incurred by him on the treatment of his daughter. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent No.1. 8. The government has extended the facility of medical reimbursement to its employees in accordance with its financial position. AIIMS and PGI are reputed medical institutions for treatment in Northern India. The government has put the ceiling on medical reimbursement as per the rates of AIIMS and PGI, This ceiling cannot be said to be wrong, illegal or arbitrary. The government has other duties in addition to the welfare of the employees for the purpose of reimbursement of medical treatment. It cannot be expected that there should be no ceiling on the reimbursement of medical expenses of the government servants. …5… The petitioner has been given reimbursement at par with the rates of AIIMS and PGI, therefore, it cannot be said that respondents have committed any illegality or arbitrariness in allowing medical reimbursement to the petitioner in accordance with the rates of AIIMS, and PGI. There is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. December 7, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.