CWP No. 7083 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7083 of 2004 Decided on : 02 -07-2010 M.L.Sharma ....Petitioner VERSUS UHBVN and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. J.K.Goel, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the respondents MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner has filed present petition under Article 226/227 praying that he be reimbursed the amount which he has spent on his medical treatment and has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing impugned orders Annexures P-3, P-6, P-9 and P-12 vide which claim for such reimbursement has been declined. He has also prayed that instructions which have been invoked by the respondent to deny him the benefit may also be quashed being irrational and arbitrary. Positive case of the petitioner is that in February 2001 his appendicitis burst forcing him to take immediate emergency treatment from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. He incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,07,751/- which was fortified by the medical bills submitted to the respondents who denied his claim in entirety and did not pay him anything because the hospital was not on the approved list of the hospitals from where treatment can be taken by the employees of the respondents. Aggrieved by the said action, the instant CWP No. 7083 of 2004 2 petition has been filed. The respondents have chosen to rely on instructions annexed as Annexure P-14 and 15 and have justified the denial of the benefit to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before this Court that such action can at best be termed to be arbitrary as the treatment was taken by the petitioner in extreme circumstances when he confronted with emergent medical situation. He has further urged that subsequently these very instructions have been modified and Sir Ganga Ram Hospital now finds mention in the list of approved hospitals. These instructions are issued in the year 2002. Therefore, he prays that he may be reimbursed the amount which he had spent on his medical treatment. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that these instructions are of year 2002 and are not applicable to the case of the petitioner and they at best can be termed to be prospective in nature. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. The petitioner was facing an emergent medical condition where he could not be expected to verify the list of hospitals which have been approved in order to avail himself of the treatment. The Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Shakuntla versus State of Haryana 2004 (1) RSJ 283 has observed as under:- “7. The petitioner is an employee of Government of Haryana and that the child is her dependent, as such, for the treatment of the child, she is entitled to reimbursement of the medical expenditure in pursuant to the Punjab Service (Medical CWP No. 7083 of 2004 3 Attendant) Rules, 1940, which are applicable to the State of Haryana. So far as the availability of the medical facilities at the institutes like AIIMS, New Delhi, normally the operation waiting period is so much that the emergency patients most of the times cannot be entertained and they are referred to other hospitals. It may be noticed that it is only in dire emergency that a person reaches the hospital where immediate treatment can be given. In a case where the life of a human being is at stake, it is too technical to require such a person to hunt for a list of the approved hospitals and then decide which hospital to go to. Sometimes, the said hospital may not be able to accommodate the patient. Such situation has been dealt with by the apex Court in Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1996 (1) RSJ 845. It may be noticed that Government of Haryana has already included Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in the list of approved hospitals and that the said notification/instructions have been issued on October 31, 2002. De hors of this, in the case of saving a human life at a given point of time, it is not expected of an attendant to look into the list and then hunt for the hospital which is contained therein. Such procedures should not be expected to be followed in an emergency by the attendant of the patient. If such regulations are applied so strictly, the end result may be disastrous and in that situation the patient may die. If the death occurs, in that eventuality the responsibility of the State cannot be washed out. No doubt, in normal circumstances the procedures prescribed should be CWP No. 7083 of 2004 4 followed but the procedure should not be made so cumbersome that one may get frustrated in adhering to such procedures. Emergency knows no law and no procedures. The emergency act when required to be committed should not be weighed in terms of money especially when human life is at stake. 8. xxx 9. xxx 10.The cumulative effect while considering the claims of all the petitioners is that the individual cases of all the petitioners need to be dealt with expeditiously because at the time of meeting out the medical expenditures in the hospitals, the payment is raised by taking loans upon interest, by sale of jewellery or liquidating their movable or immovable assets including the Fixed Deposits, if any. Such acts sometimes involve the life time saving of an employee. Thus, the question of dealing with such kind of payments does leave a healthy impression with an employee. Generally speaking, the employer is expected to look after his employees though as per the terms and conditions spelt out in the terms of employment or the rules framed in respect thereof. Wherever the rules prescribe the reimbursement to be made to the employees, the unnecessary delays should be avoided. The facts spelt out in all these cases relate to such kind of delays and thereby the petitioners have faced the unnecessary harassments. We are of the view that the impugned orders vide which the claims of the petitioners have been rejected CWP No. 7083 of 2004 5 are not sustainable under law, as the plea set up is that the hospitals are not recognised or are not contained in the list approved by the government, which does not stand the test of law. Thus, the case of all the petitioners deserve to be scrutinised in accordance with the rules and so also the Judge made law. Therefore, we grant a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned orders of rejection in respect of the claims of each of the petitioners which have been impugned before us and we also command the government by issuing a writ of mandamus that the cases of all the petitioners be dealt with in accordance with the rules and the Judge made law within a period of three months. It is clarified that the petitioners may substantiate their claims, if so required, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgement and that the aforestated period of three months shall in addition to 15 days and wherever the additional pleas or the additional documents are not required to be submitted, the aforestated period of 15 days shall not be available to either side. It is further directed that upon deciding the cases of the petitioners within the aforestated period, the payment due and payable to the petitioners shall be made within one month thereafter, failing which the Government shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum after the expiry of the period of one month as prescribed. The interest amount so payable shall be deducible from the salary of the officer(s) concerned and responsible for dealing with and for CWP No. 7083 of 2004 6 not making the payment within the aforestated period and that the said amount shall not be reimbursible by the government under any head. It is clarified that for any such delay beyond the aforestated period the interest accrued thereon shal be paid by the government in the first instance and the deductions shall be made after the liability has been fastened by the concerned quarters.” That apart the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the instructions are prospective in nature and cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner is also erroneous. These are instructions which are meant to be applied liberally being beneficial in intent and the fact that hospital from where the petitioner had taken treatment has also been included in the list of approved hospitals shows that the respondents are alive to the seriousness of the situation and predicament of the employees. Therefore, respondents cannot deny such a benefit to the petitioner on the ground that it will apply to persons after 2002 and not to persons who were treated prior to the date of coming into force of the instructions as it amounts to artificial classification which is impermissible under the law. The petition is, thus, accepted and it is directed that the respondents shall pay to the petitioner the amount which he has spent on his medical treatment forthwith within a period of one month from today alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum for having wrongfully denying the claim of the petitioner. July 02, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge