Civil Writ Petition No. 3062 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3062 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.09.2010 M.R. Garg ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. K.K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. Eighty four years old retired employee suffering from various chronic diseases like Coronary Artery and Asthama is struggling to get reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him on his sickness, in turn for his very survival. The petitioner has retired as Additional Director of Food and Supplies Department on 31.03.1981. At this ripe age, he is not only suffering the affects of his advanced age but also that of his chronic diseases. With meager resources at his command, his survival would depend upon reimbursement of the money spent by him for his treatment. Babus being unmindful of any such consideration would move at their leisure speed and would find way to deny rightful dues on technicalities by ignoring the merits of the claim. The petitioner has submitted medical reimbursement bill of Rs. 1,16,873/- spent by him on his treatment. This is pertaining to Civil Writ Petition No. 3062 of 2010 2 the period from November and December, 2007 and some bills are for the period from March and July, 2008. Babus would confront the petitioner with rule which require that medical reimbursement claim be submitted within 12 months of completion of treatment. The respondents have rejected the claim on the strength of instructions (Annexure P-4). As per which, claims for medical reimbursement are required to be preferred within 12 months. It is not the concern of the respondents that the petitioner is old, infirm and is bedridden. That old age and infirmity can be a valid reason in delayed submission of the claim and a genuine mitigating circumstance should have been enough to melt a hardened heart, but has not moved the rigid Babudom for condoning the delay, if any, in the submissions of the claim . In the written statement filed by the respondents, the usual technical plea is raised to say that the time limit for preferring the claim for reimbursement for the expenses incurred by the Government employee is a period of 12 months from the date of completion of the treatment. It is also stated that the medical claim submitted after a period of 12 months are to be referred to Health Department and Health Department can entertain such medical claims only after scrutiny and exceptional cases where there are genuine mitigating circumstances i.e. like death case which may lead to delay in submission of the claim. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. To say the least, respondents are being too rigid and hyper technical while dealing with the case of this old bed ridden retired employee. The approach adopted is unfair. Is it that the delay Civil Writ Petition No. 3062 of 2010 3 is to be condoned only in death cases? Surely, the respondent would not wish the petitioner to die. Would it not be irony of fate that delayed claim would be allowed if one is no more but not when he is surviving. Where would be the need for money if the man is no more. Only living would need resources for himself to survive. In case of death, money would go for some one else. The petitioner certainly has spent this amount for his survival. Denial of the claim only on the ground that he had submitted his claim with delay would not be a fair approach. The petitioner has disclosed that he is infirm and is totally bid ridden and is unable to walk. If this cannot be a valid reason to condone delay in submitting the claim, there may hardly be any case to ignore delay. The case of the petitioner even may be more needy than those of even death cases. The petitioner is bedridden and still his claim is not being reimbursed to him. He would not need it if he is no more. The decision of the Government in declining the claim only on this ground, thus, cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. Directions are issued to the respondents to consider and clear the claim of medical reimbursement submitted by the petitioner, which is due to him in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The present writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. September 28, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE