IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12984 of 2002 DR.SHATRUGHAN TIWARI, son of late Lallan Tiwari, resident of village Sikta Belwa, P.S. Ramnagar, District West Champaran … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Dept. of Health, Medical Education and Family Planning, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The Deputy Director (Admin), Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 4. 23.7.2010 Heard Mr. B.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows: “a. A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the orders contained in letter no. 8496(14) dated 19.11.2001 (Annexure 2) and letter no. 3258(14) dated 13.6.2002 (Annexure 5) passed by respondent no.2, by which he has refused to entertain the medical bills submitted by the petitioner for the treatment of his son. b. A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction be issued commanding the respondent authorities to reimburse the medical bills relating to the treatment of the son of the petitioner at the Apollo Hospital, 2 Chennai, as out-door patient.” Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforementioned prayer would submit that when it is an admitted fact that the son of the petitioner had to undergo renal treatment in an approved specialized Centre at Chennai Apollo Hospital, Chennai and the petitioner is also entitled for such reimbursement of expenses incurred on treatment, the respondents cannot refuse to make payment of part of the amount on the ground that earlier bills were already sanctioned and paid for the same period in question. He would submit that there is no limitation prescribed under the Rules and thus, when the treatment and expenses made thereon is admitted the decision taken by the authority is patently arbitrary and it is fit to be interfered with. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that in terms of Bihar Govt. Servant Medical Attendant Rules when the petitioner had submitted his bills for indoor treatment of his son for the period 4.8.1992 to 19.2.2001 and they were also 3 sanctioned and paid to the petitioner, there would be no question once again entertaining any bill seeking reimbursement of outdoor treatment for the same period. In this context it has been explained in paragraph 10 that such bills for outdoor treatment were filed by the petitioner for the years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1998 to 1999 only in the year 2001 at a very belated stage and were in fact not capable of being once again cheeked processed and passed after the Government had already taken a decision to make payment of the indoor bills earlier submitted by the petitioner for the aforementioned period of treatment between 4.9.1992 to 19.2.2001. Mr. Shukla, however, in reply would submit that whatever bills were submitted by the petitioner and paid to him relating to indoor treatment in Apollo Hospital but the son of the petitioner had to also undergo such treatment in out-door of Apollo Hospital. He has also produced the abstract of the bills which would go to show that the petitioner had to spend Rs. 92,999/- in the year 1993, Rs. 1,16,748.58 paise in the year 4 1994, Rs. 41,963.44 paise in the year 1995 and Rs, 44,873/- for the years 1988-1999 in course of outdoor treatment of his son and were not covered by the period of indoor treatment. He would submit that if the rules permit also reimbursing expenses of out-door treatment the government was required to at least look into this aspect from the angle as to whether such bills were correct and/or genuine. Specially when there was no rule which prohibited the Government from considering payment of bills for the period payments were already made, and at least communicate the petitioner such reasons with some clarity in stead of passing the impugned orders, as contained in Annexures 2 and 5, mechanically by rejecting the claim on the ground that the payment of supplementary bills for the out-door treatment could not be entertained as payment had already been made to the petitioner for the indoor treatment in the period in question. This Court at present would not like to go into this question because the Government itself has not addressed as with 5 regard to admissibility of out-door treatment but then if the Government has allowed the payment of indoor treatment expenses of the son of the petitioner it would be also required to examine the admissibility of reimbursement of expenses incurred by the petitioner on the outdoor treatment of his son by verifying such bills of Apollo Hospital which are capable of being verified from the source, if necessary, even by deputing an authorized person. Such payment of such bills should not be rejected mechanically, inasmuch as the object of the Rule is to help a Government servant by reimbursing the actual expenses made by him for treatment of himself or dependent his family members. This Court, therefore, would remit the matter back to the Principal Secretary of the Health Department who should personally look into the aspect both from legal and also humanitarian point of view and if there be no statutory bar in making such payment to the petitioner, the matter should be reconsidered from the angle that probably the submission of such outdoor 6 bills by the petitioner may be belated, but none-the-less if they are admissible and payable, they too are required to be paid in the same manner in which the payment of bills for indoor treatment was given to the petitioner. This Court, however, would not say anything on the merit of such claim because it is for the respondents to examine the bills under the rules and take their decision strictly in accordance with law. That being so, this application is disposed of with an observation and direction that if the petitioner would file a representation explaining entitlement of such outdoor bills of treatment of his son, the same shall be examined afresh by the authorities and a final decision thereon would be taken by the respondent Principal Secretary, Health, within a period of six months from the date of filing of the representation alongwith a copy of this order. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/ 7