IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3514 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 16th March, 2010. Prem Chand Sharma Petitioner through Mr. Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner is a poor Beldar working in the Drainage Department at Phagwara Division. He had to undergo treatment from a private hospital during the period from 29.10.2000 to 3.11.2000 when he was found suffering with Perforate Duodental Ulcer C Peritonitis. The petitioner spent an amount of Rs.18,465/- on his medical treatment and sought its reimbursement. However, a sum of Rs.8795/- only was sanctioned and that too after a long delay, i.e., on 14.6.2007. The respondents themselves are not sure as to what were the reasons to deny the entire reimbursement to the petitioner, though his claim appears to have been rejected on the ground that the petitioner took treatment as an 'Out-Door Patient' from a private hospital. The afore-stated ground can not sustain for the reasons assigned by this Court in Raj Pal Wadhawan v State of Punjab & Another, 2004[3] RSJ, 540 as well as various other decisions cited therein. Suffice it to observe that the distinction carried out by the State Government between 'In-door' and 'Out-door' patients was held to be unreasonable classification. The respondents are, however, harping upon their revised policy decision taken after the decision of this Court in Raj Pal Wadhawan's case [supra]. In my considered view, the change in policy also does not help the respondents for the reason that the petitioner got treatment in the year 2000 whereas the revised policy decision has been taken in the year 2004 or so. It deserves to be mentioned here that despite repeated opportunities and orders passed by this Court, the Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur has filed his reply today only, which is taken on record. This simply reflects on the casual and indifferent attitude of the authorities towards a Class-IV employee. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to reimburse the balance amount of medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, as per the AIIMS rates forthwith but not later than one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of Rs.5000/-. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to recover the same from the officers/officials who are found responsible for the delay in reimbursement of medical expenses to the petitioner. Disposed of. Dasti. March 16, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE