SBCWP No.10201/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10201/2007. Kumari Budhiwati Patni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of order : August 21, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.P. Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Jinesh Jain, Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT :- This writ petition has been filed by Kumari Budhiwati Patni who is serving with the respondents as LDC who is suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis and underwent treatment in SMS Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur but due to serious ailment, she was referred to AIIMS vide letter dated 25/4/2005 where she remained indoor patient from 30/4/2005 to 21/5/2005. She underwent total knee SBCWP No.10201/07. 2 replacement and hip replacement. A total sum of Rs.2,19,959/- were spent in the treatment in AIIMS. She submitted an application on 27/5/2006 for reimbursing the said expenditure. Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 3/7/2006, sanctioned only a sum of Rs.1,24,440/-. Apart from the above sum, two medical bills submitted by the petitioner for Rs.25,798.77 and Rs.22,903/- remained unpaid to the petitioner. Petitioner in all claimed a sum of Rs.1,44,660/- from the respondents which she actually incurred on her treatment. 2) Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner when initially approached the SMS Hospital, Principal, SMS Medical College & Controller of the Attached Hospitals, Jaipur vide order dated 5/4/2005 was advised that petitioner should go to AIIMS for T.H.R. Right Knee and Pilateral T.K.R. Cost of the treatment for T.K.R. Bilateral and T.H.R. was approximately Rs.2 lacs and Rs.50,000/-, respectively. There SBCWP No.10201/07. 3 was no justification for the respondents in withholding amount of Rs.99,959/- out of the total bills, apart from two separate bills. Learned counsel referred to the opinion of the medical board dated 14/9/2005 by which, petitioner was recommended for the AIIMS. It is contended that once the constituted medical board referred the petitioner to the AIIMS, she ought to be paid expenses. Learned counsel submitted that respondents have made part payment and for remaining two bills, now they are insisting that she should furnish undertaking that she would not claim any other payment and accept whatever sanctioned originally. It is contended that she has been even ot having paid the salary and respondents are harrasing her, hence, she has filed the present writ petition. 3) Shri Jinesh Jain, learned Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that already a sum of Rs.1,44,440/- was reimbursed to the petitioner towards medical SBCWP No.10201/07. 4 expenses by relaxing the Rajasthan Civil Services Medical Attendance Rules, 1970. Regarding remaining two bills, learned counsel submitted that payment of the same was under process. Some information have been called for from the petitioner which was lateron received. Her salary for the period from April 2006 to 20/7/2007 to the tune of Rs.6732/- has been paid. Additional reason that is given is that further amount could not be paid to the petitioner against two bills as the budget was not available. This much amount was not paid to the petitioner because she remained absent without proper leave. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 4) Having given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the parties and perused the documents aforesaid, I find that the Principal Controller of SMS College Jaipur has given his assessment/estimated expenditure to be incurred for treatment of the petitioner under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1970. In that SBCWP No.10201/07. 5 estimate, total cost of her surgery was estimated to be Rs.2,80,000/-. The Board, unlike in the other cases of this nature, while referring the case of the petitioner to the AIIMS has not mentioned that reference was made on request of the petitioner. What has been written is that she has been referred to AIIMS as she is under follow up there but the Board had written that reimbursement shall be made equalent to the SMS Hospital where expenditure is Rs.50,000/-. It is not clear whether expenditure of Rs.50,000/- indicated by the Board included cost of implant or why amount of Rs.50,000/- only should be accepted towards the claim higher than Rs.50,000/- actually incurred by the patient. Cost of implant in the AIIMS itself is Rs.1,53,137/- against which, respondents sanctioned only Rs.90,000/-. Moreover, when principally in the estimate initially prepared on 14/9/2005, estimated cost was much higher than Rs.50,000/-. There was no question of the same SBCWP No.10201/07. 6 being estimated at the lower side. Insistence of the respondents to require the petitioner to furnish an undertaking giving up claim regarding remaining two bills would cannot be appreciated. Respondents are not in a position to show that reimbursement which the petitioner was claiming was not for the actual expenditure incurred by him. It is not disputed that she underwent treatment at AIIMS after being referred to by the duly constituted medical board of the SMS Hospital, Jaipur. 5) In view of above, petitioner has made out a case for issuance of mandamus. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Respondents shall pay to the petitioner Rs.1,44,660/- with interest @ 6% p.a. Such payment shall be made within a period of two months from date copy of this order is produced before the respondents. So far as salary for the period between April 2006 to July 2007 is concerned, it cannot be accepted SBCWP No.10201/07. 7 that she would be entitled to only Rs.6635.82 for the aforesaid period. However, she will be at liberty to make fresh representation to the respondents giving complete particulars of the leave applications. Medical Certificates submitted shall be reexamined that the leave of the kind due to the petitioner is granted in accordance with the rules. Such representation shall be decided under intimation to the petitioner within the time indicated above. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil