IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 624 of 2002 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= JV SHAH, EX MANAGING DIRECTOR - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR GM JOSHI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR VS PATHAK, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4.
MR KM PATEL, SR.ADVOCATE with MR JIGAR M.PATEL for Respondent(s) : 5, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 26/03/2012 CAV JUDGMENT This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred by Ex.Managing Director of the Gujarat State Seeds Corporation with the following prayers :
“6.
(A) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order, declaring that the action of the Respondent–Authorities in not reimbursing the full amount of Medical Bill amounting to Rs.1,45,810/= submitted by the petitioner for his by-pass surgery at Apollo Hospitals, Madras on 16.10.1999 and paying adhoc payment of Rs.70,000/= as illegal and to pay interest on the balance amount from the date of submission of the Bill till the date of payment.
(B) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(C) Be pleased to award the costs of this petition.
(D) During the admission, pendency and final disposal of the petition, be pleased to direct the respondents to deposit the balance amount of Bill i.e. Rs.75,810/- along with 24% interest from the date of submission of the Bill till its payment, before this Hon’ble Court, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties.”
Facts shortly stated are thus :
Petitioner after having been retired as an Area Development Commissioner, Ahmedabad came to be appointed as Managing Director of the Gujarat State Seeds Corporation.
Record reveals that on 13th September 1999 when the petitioner was in active service with respondent no.4 he went to meet the Hon’ble Minister of the concerned department and all of a sudden complained of severe chest pain. On 15th September 1999 the petitioner was advised to undergo angiography and accordingly on 16th September 1999 angiography was performed upon the petitioner at Rajasthan Hospital, Ahmedabad. The angiography report revealed that there were 7 blockages in three blood vessels carrying blood to and from the heart. The Doctor certified the same as severe triple DCC. The petitioner was advised to undergo By-pass surgery at the earliest as the blockages in the three blood vessels were 7 in numbers. Considering the seriousness of the situation the petitioner was advised to go to Chennai and get himself operated at Apollo Hospital. As per the circular of the Government of Gujarat dated 26th March 1999 issued by respondent no.1 if a person wants to undergo a surgery at Hospital outside the State i.e. at another State, then he has to seek approval of the Head of the Cardiology Department, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, who will recommend such cases and more particularly for the purpose of reimbursement of the entire medical expenses signature of the RMO–Cadre-I, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad is also a must.
It is a case of the petitioner that immediately on 20th September 1999 he addressed a letter to the Head of Cardiology Department, Ahmedabad Civil Hospital enclosing the angiography test reports requesting for reimbursement of medical expenses as the petitioner was to get himself operated at Chennai Apollo Hospital. The petitioner also addressed one another letter dated 27th September 1999 to respondent no.3 seeking prior approval for the purpose of getting himself operated at Apollo Hospital, Chennal.
Record reveals that the Doctors at Ahmedabad advised the petitioner to send angiography report as well as the cassettes to Apollo Hospital, Chennai. The petitioner forwarded the angiography test report along with the cassettes to Apollo Hospital at Chennai and the hospital authorities at Chennai informed the petitioner to get himself admitted on 13th October 1999 and to get operated on 16th October 1999.
It appears that in response to the application which was preferred by the petitioner to respondent no.5, a letter was written on 23rd September 1999 but signed on 5th October 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that the date of the letter was changed to 6th October 1999 and posted on 14th October 1999 which was received at the address of the petitioner on 15th October 1999. By letter dated 6th October 1999 which was received by the petitioner on 15th October 1999, the petitioner was informed that he should meet the Director of U.N.Mehta Institute of Cardiology and Research Center on any Wednesday or Saturday between 9 a.m. to 12 noon. The petitioner was informed that if he is desirous of getting himself operated at any hospital outside the State of Gujarat and would like to pray for complete reimbursement of the entire medical expenses which would be incurred at such a hospital then for that purpose recommendation of Head of the Cardiology Department at Civil Hospital is necessary. Letter at Annexure-C which has been annexed to the petition would suggest that the petitioner was asked by the Director of U.N.Mehta Institute of Cardiology & Research Center, Ahmedabad to come to the Hospital on any Wednesday and Saturday between 9 to 12 noon and contact the concerned Doctor of the Institution.
It deserves to be noted that by the time the authorities concerned thought fit to inform the petitioner about the procedure, the petitioner was already operated at Apollo Hospital, Chennai. Thus, the letter dated 6th October 1999 (Annexure-C) to the petition which was posted on 14th October 1999 was received by the petitioner on 15th October 1999, the date on which the petitioner was admitted to Apollo Hospital, Chennai.
The petitioner was successfully operated at Apollo Hospital, Chennai and incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.1,45,810=00. It appears that the petitioner claimed amount of Rs.1,45,810=00 by placing all the bills and other documents of Apollo Hospital, Chennai for the purpose of reimbursement. But the authorities sanctioned an amount of Rs.70,000=00 only on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with the directions as issued in the Government Circular which has been referred to above for the purpose of reimbursement.
Record reveals that the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 10th April 2001 addressed by the Section Officer, Agriculture and Cooperative Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar that the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of Rs.1,45,810=00 cannot be sanctioned as there has been non-compliance of the Gujarat State Service (Medical Treatment) Rules, 1988.
It appears that the petitioner, thereafter, preferred many representations in this regard explaining as to why he had to leave immediately for Chennai and the manner in which the authorities responded to the applications which were preferred by the petitioner for the purpose of complying with the Rules, 1988.
It appears that the authorities were adamant so far as the decision not to reimburse the entire amount but to only reimburse Rs.70,000/- and refused to accede to the request of the petitioner. It is at this stage that the petitioner thought fit to prefer this petition praying for appropriate reliefs in this regard.
I) Contentions of the Petitioner :
Learned Counsel Mr.G.M.Joshi, appearing for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that this petition is a fine specimen to demonstrate the approach of the authorities even in cases where a man is between Life and Death. He submitted that on sustaining massive cardiac arrest the petitioner got himself examined revealing 7 blockages in three main arteries and necessary permission to undergo Open Heart Bypass surgery at Chennai Apollo Hospital was prayed for but there was no response to the application of the petitioner dated 20th September 1999 at the earliest and by that time the operation was performed on 15th October 1999 i.e. almost after 25 days of meeting with the Head of the Cardiology Department. It is submitted by Mr.Joshi that by that time the petitioner was compelled to undergo Open Heart surgery at Chennai Apollo Hospital as the authorities of Apollo Hospital, Chennai asked the petitioner to immediately rush down having regard to the seriousness of the situation. Mr.Joshi vehemently submitted that in spite of the undisputed facts, the authorities very adamantly informed that they would be sanctioning only Rs.70,000=00 towards medical reimbursement and not the entire amount of Rs.1,45,810=00. Mr.Joshi vehemently contended that the facts of the case are very eloquent and for delay on the part of the authorities, it cannot be said that the petitioner has failed to comply with the Rules of 1988 so far as the Medical Treatment is concerned. Mr.Joshi also submitted that even the Hospital authorities at Chennai gave preference to the case of the petitioner for performing Open Heart Surgery within a period of 25 days in spite of the backlog of several cases of different people from all over the country. He submitted that in this view of the matter the action of respondent no.1 in not reimbursing the cost of operation based on the circular has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved inasmuch as the action of respondent no.1 amounts to colourable exercise of power.
The learned counsel Mr.Joshi further submitted that if the letter dated 23rd September 1999 would have been signed in time, the petitioner could have met with the requirements of respondent no.5 to appear before the Head of Cardiology Department and for no fault on the part of the petitioner, the medical reimbursement of the balance amount is being refused despite the fact that the petitioner is entitled for the same. Mr.Joshi invited my attention to the resolution of the State Government dated 26th March 1999 and submitted that the same is silent so far as the requirement of personal examination of the claimant-petitioner before the Head of Cardiology Department, Civil Hospital for getting prior approval for undergoing surgery at any other hospital outside the Gujarat State is concerned. He submitted that the petitioner tried his best to comply with the directions as laid down in the Circular. That the authorities cannot find fault with the petitioner as the delay was on the part of respondent no.5 in signing the letter dated 23rd September 1999 on 6th October 1999 i.e. after about 14 days. He submitted that even after such gross delay if the letter would have been posted immediately, the petitioner could have received the same as the petitioner left for Chennai on 10th October 1999. However, the record reveals that the same was posted after inordinate delay and was received by the petitioner only on 15th October 1999 when by that time the petitioner was already admitted in Apollo Hospital at Chennai. Mr.Joshi invited my attention to the letter of the Director of Accounts & Treasury, Gujarat State, dated 28th November 2000 addressed to the office of respondent no.2 requesting to sanction reimbursement of the medical expenses as a special case. This recommendation was pursuant to the opinion sought by the Commissioner, Health & Family Welfare Department of the Director of Accounts & Treasury, State of Gujarat.
Mr.Joshi lastly submitted that the question is not of the amount which is being prayed for but the question is of principle and, therefore, this is a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its powers and grant the relief which has been prayed for in the petition.
II) Contentions of Respondents :
Learned AGP Mrs.V.S.Pathak appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 vehemently submitted that there is no merit in this petition and the same deserves to be rejected. The learned AGP submitted that the cases of medical reimbursement are governed by the Gujarat State Service (Medical Treatment) Rules, 1988. Relying on Rule-8 of 1988 Rules, she submitted that there is a procedure which has been prescribed for the purpose of reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred at Hospital outside the State of Gujarat i.e. Hospitals other than the Government Hospital. The learned AGP submitted that if a Government employee wants to take treatment from a hospital other than Government Hospital, then two conditions are required to be fulfilled – (i) a certificate needs to be obtained regarding necessity of treatment from a hospital other than Government Hospital by the authorized Doctor and (ii) Prior approval of the Director of Medical Service. She submitted that if the provisions of Rule-8(1)(c) is not followed/adhered to then in such event, policy enunciated by Government Resolution dated 26th March would come into play. She submitted that an amount of Rs.70,000=00 has been rightly sanctioned and paid to the petitioner as per the Rules and the policy governing the right of medical reimbursement. Mrs.Pathak has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply which has been filed by Dr.N.K.Patel, Additional Director, Commissioner of Health, Medical Services (Medical Section), Gandhinagar. She has relied upon paragraphs 6 to 17 of the reply in support of her contentions which are reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience.
“6. I say and submit that the cases of medical reimbursement are governed by the Government State Service (Medical Treatment) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Rules for the sake of brevity).
7. I say and submit that Rule (8) of the abovementioned Rules clearly lays down provision regarding the Government Hospitals, the treatment that can be undertaken by the Government employee and also deals with the issue regarding reimbursement of treatment under taken by the Government employee in such specified Hospital.
8. Rule 8(1)(c) provides that in case if the treatment could not be available to the Government employee through the Government Hospital at the local place or the Head-quarter then in such case certificate being issued by Authorized Doctor. The said treatment can be availed of at the Hospital. Out side the State as an exceptional case. This would be subject to the prior approval of Director of Medical Services. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-I is the copy of the Rules.
9. Thus by mere perusal of the Rule, it is crystal clear that if a person/Government employee wants to take treatment from the Hospital other than the Government Hospital then two requisite conditions should be met with:
a) A certificate regarding necessity of treatment from a hospital other than Government Hospital by the Authorized Doctor.
b) Prior approval of the Director of Medical Service.
10. I say and submit that if the provisions of Rule 8(1)(c) is not followed/adhered to then in such event, policy enunciated by Government Resolution dated 26th March, would come into play. I say and submit that the said Government Resolution clearly states that in case there is breach of condition 8(1)(c) of the abovementioned rules other than in cases such as that of the petitioner viz., Coronary Artery By pass Surgery/By Pass Surgery, such person/Government employee/petitioner would be entitled to lump-sum of Rs.70,000/-. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-II is the copy of the abovementioned Rules.
11. I further say and submit that in view of the Rules and looking to the policy of the Government, the petitioner was entitled to receive the amount of Rs.70,000/- for having undergone By pass Surgery from a Hospital outside the State of Gujarat. I say that the entire amount of Rs.70,000/- due to payable as per the rules and policy has been paid to the petitioner.
12. I say and submit that had the petitioner obtained prior approval of Director of Medical Service then the petitioner would have been entitled to the full reimbursement. I say that the petitioner has not taken any prior approval as required by the Rules, the petitioner has not applied as per the Rules and has failed to obtained prior approval of the Director of Medical Service, the petitioner is not entitled to get any further payment save and except the above stated amount already paid to him.
13. Thus, the petitioner has failed to meet with the said requirement for becoming eligible to claim any further amount than what has been paid to him. I say and submit that the petitioner has failed to obtain prior approval of Additional Director of Medical Service for taking treatment outside the State of Gujarat. In view of the abovementioned failures the petitioner would be entitled to receive the maximum amount of Rs.70,000/-, which as already been paid to the petitioner in consonance with the provisions of the Rules and policy of the Government under order dated 10/7/2000. Hence, no further amount has to be paid to the petitioner as claimed or otherwise and hence the question of payment of interest thereupon does not arise.
14. I say and submit that the entire petition is misconceived and appears to be result of ignorance of relevant Rules and policy of the state Government, and hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed summarily with costs.
15. I say and submit that both the departments have denied to treat the Petitioner’s case as Special Case, as the same would be against the rules, policy and would further, set a bad precedent.
16. I say and submit that both the departments have found no necessity and or compelling reasons for deviating from the prevailing Rules and the policy of the State Government.
17. I say and submit that any such deviation to the said Rules would create a precedent that would encourage employees to flout the Rules. Therefore, the question of treating the case of the petitioner as a special case cannot be considered.”
III) Analysis :
Before I proceed to undertake the analysis of the contentions of respective counsel for the parties, I would like to look into the Rules of 1988 governing the issue in question. The Rules are known as the Gujarat Civil Service (Medical Treatment) Rules, 1988.
“Gujarat State Services (Medical Treatment) Rules,1988
Rule-1 : Short title and application.
(1) These Rules may be called “Gujarat State Service (Medical Treatment) Rules, the Act of 1988.”
(2) These Rules shall apply to all Government employees, whose service conditions are governed by the Rules framed or said to have been framed by the State of Gujarat, while they are on duty, on leave or under suspension within India.
(3) These Rules shall not apply to following employees.
(a) Government employees regulated by the All India Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1954 i.e. A.I.S. Officers as well as judges of the District and Civil Courts etc.
(b) Government employees on leave or on deputation in a foreign country.
(4) The Rules shall apply to following employees:
(a) Government Pensioners reappointed in the service of Government of Gujarat irrespective of the post he/ she was serving on.
(b) Probationers.
(c) Other Government employees on deputation in Government of Gujarat.
(d) Honorary Medical Officers in Government hospitals and Medical Colleges.
(e) Work Charge Employees who have been in the service for one continuous year.
(f) State pensioners, Chairman and Members of the Gujarat State Public Service Commission and Gujarat Panchayat Selection Board and their family member and including members of AIS working on state cadre.
(g) Daily wagers engaged by the Department who have worked for 360 days on the regular muster –roll in the Public Works Department.
RULE-2(7)(T) Artificial valve of heart:
The permission for artificial valve of the heart will be sanctioned to respective government employee on production of all certificates by the Government employee with recommendation of medical officer along with an application to the Director, Health Services (Medical), Gandhinagar, and on recommendation from the Director, Health Service (Medical), Gandhinagar, Administrative officer shall pay the cost of the valve directly to the institute (agency) giving valve.
RULE-8 Hospitals at which treatment may be received and reimbursement there for:-
(1) The patient shall be entitled to take free of charge treatment at the following hospitals:
(A) In such Government hospital situated at station or in district where he falls ill, which can, in the opinion of the authorized medical practitioner provide the necessary and suitable treatment; or
(B) If there is no such hospital as is referred to in clause (a), in such hospital other than a Government hospital situated at station or in district which can, in the opinion of the authorized medical practitioner, provide the necessary and suitable treatment, or
(C) If there is no such hospital referred to in clauses (a) and (b) in such hospital in the state which can, in the opinion of authorized medical practitioner, provide the necessary and suitable treatment, Provided that where in any exceptional case the authorized medical practitioner is opine that the necessary and suitable treatment is available only in a hospital out side the state (but within India), he may, with the approval of the Director Health & Medical Services (Medical) of the state (which shall be obtained beforehand unless the delay involved entails danger to the health of the patient) send the patient for treatment in such hospital.”
The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that even though he was required to take emergency treatment for heart ailment in the private hospital, his medical claim is not sanctioned by the Department. The facts as I have reproduced in the judgment are undisputed. It is required to be noted that, whenever there is emergency for taking medical treatment, one is not expected to find out where the Government or Civil Hospital is situated. In such cases an attempt would be made by the concerned person or his relative first to approach the nearest hospital so that one can save his life. All other things are subsequent and under the circumstances, the first priority which is required to be given by a person is to save his life. It is not expected, therefore, from an ailing person to run from pillar to post seeking permission or prior approval to go and get himself operated at other hospital outside the State of Gujarat as in the present case at Apollo Hospital, Chennai having regard to the nature of the ailment. I am of the view, considering the peculiar facts of the case, that the respondents should have gracefully sanctioned the medical bill in favour of the petitioner. In spite of knowing fully well that in the angiography report 7 blockages were detected in three main arteries, the respondents, considered the application of the petitioner as if he was to travel outside the State of Gujarat for medical treatment for an ailment like common Cold or Fever. The Rules, 1988 itself provides that a person can be admitted in the private hospital in case of emergency and even the medical bill for the same emergency treatment can be reimbursed in turn with the rates of the Government hospital or any other private hospital.
At this stage, reference is also required to be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Surjit Singh v/s. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1388. In paragraph 11, the Apex Court has observed as under :
“The appellant, therefore, had the right to take steps in self preservation. He did not have to stand in queue before the Medical Board, the manning and assembling of which, bare- facedly, makes its meetings difficult to happen. The appellant also did not have to stand in queue in the Government hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhere to an alternate hospital as per policy. When the State itself has brought the Escorts on the recognized list, it is futile for it to contend that the appellant could in no event have gone to the Escorts and his claim cannot on that basis be allowed, on suppositions. We think to the contrary. In the facts and circumstances, had the appellant remained in India, he could have gone to the Escorts like many others did, to save his life. But instead he has done that in London incurring considerable expense. The doctors causing his operation there are presumed to have done so as one essential and timely. On that hypothesis, it is fair and just that the respondents pay to the appellant, the rates admissible as per Escorts. The claim of the appellant having been found valid, the question posed at the outset is answered in the affirmative. Of course the sum of Rs.40,000/- already paid to the appellant would have to be adjusted in computation. Since the appellant did not have his claim dealt with in the High Court in the manner it has been projected now in this Court, we do not grant him any interest for the intervening period, even though prayed for. Let the difference be paid to the appellant within two months positively. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There need be no order as to costs.”
It also deserves to be stated that it is not a case where the respondents are doubting that the petitioner has undergone operation at Chennai. They are also not doubting the bill amount of Apollo Hospital at Chennai. It is a matter of common experience that in the matter of undergoing By-pass Surgery and that too in the year 2000 almost about 12 years back when the technology was not so advanced like the present day technology utmost confidence and belief in the profession who had to undertake this operation as well as or after care in the hospital are very very essential. It is a case of life and death of a person and he will not like to undergo a serious operation at a hospital in which he has no confidence.
I have come across a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: Mr.Justice S.K.Keshote) in Special Civil Application No.800/1998 decided on 27th October 1999 on almost identical issue in question. I would like to refer and rely upon the same. In the aforesaid case before the learned Single Judge the petitioner of that case had the same cardiac problem and the angiography test revealed blockages in the arteries. The petitioner was advised to immediately undergo Bypass surgery at Apollo Hospital, Chennai. The petitioner applied for necessary permission in this regard and waited for sanction, but in the meantime suffered a massive cardiac arrest. Two options at that stage were open to him either to go for Bypass surgery at Civil Hospital, where he did not want to go for the reason that much of reputation, confidence and faith had not been acquired by the Civil Hospital and/or was to die. Any human being would not like to die and, therefore, the petitioner immediately rushed to Apollo Hospital, Madras on 5th August 1996 and was operated for severe triple vessel coronary artery. He incurred expenses of Rs.1,19,475=00. He applied for reimbursement of the bill amount of Apollo Hospital, Chennai, but the authorities refused to sanction the same, because no prior approval was sought for by the petitioner. In this background while allowing the petition of the petitioner and directing the Government Authorities to reimburse the amount with 12% interest, the learned Single Judge held and observed as under :
“What the Welfare State and its officers contend is that the petitioner has to undergo bypass surgery of severe triple vessel coronary artery at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and not at the Hospital of his confidence and belief. It is unfortunate that the respondents have insisted to undergo for this serious operation at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. But they are not appreciating that despite of the fact that the State Government invests huge amount of public money for this civil Hospital it could not gain that much reputation faith, belief and confidence of the ailing citizens of the city to prefer this Hospital for this type of serious operation i.e. to undergo bypass surgery of triple vessel coronary artery. It is not a matter of going to a restaurant to have lunch or dinner or a breakfast or to go to law garden to have a chat or debeli or hotdog etc. It is a very serious thing and as it pertains to the life of a human being, the person concerned will not like to take any risk and at all the cost he will like to have this operation to be undertaken by a senior experienced and reputed doctor and at the hospital of high reputation and confidence.”
“It comes from the different corners that the higher ups of the society, offices and officers of the Government f not prefer to go for all these major operations at the Civil Hospital. Even for angiography, the higher class of officers and the high dignitaries of the State Government, as what it comes from the different corners, do not prefer to go to Civil Hospital. They prefer either to go to Escort, Delhi or Apollo, Madras or Bombay Hospital, Bombay or even at Ahmedabad to the Gujarat Research and Medical Institute (Rajasthan Hospital). If for angiography this class of persons do not prefer civil hospital how it is desirable and reasonable of the officers of the Gandhinagar to expect that the petitioner had to go for this serious operation at the civil Hospital, Ahmedabad.”
“In a case where employee is serious and desires to go to the hospital outside the State for operation and which he had also made it clear by making an application, if we go by the defence of the respondents, then he has to wait till the sanction has been granted before he proceeds to Chennai (Madras) and the possible result would have been in majority of the cases death of that person. In such matters, it is not unknown that the officers of the State Government do not expeditiously deal with such applications.”
“The petitioner has applied for grant of sanction i.e. he also applied for grant of permission to him to go for this operation at Apollo Hospital at Madras. There is all possibility that in the meanwhile he could have suffered acute heart attack and shall have to undergo the operation immediately. In such a case, under the hope that sanction will be granted he has to wait for this sanction and there is all possibility where the government over this matter and in the meanwhile he could have died of this disease. The bonafide of the Government servant has to be considered and keeping in view the overall facts of this case, i.e. the angiography report, the advise of cardiologist Dr. Gupta as well as of the Cardiologist at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and when the respondents accepted that the petitioner has undergone this surgery at Apollo Hospital at Madras and naturally it is known to the respondents that what is the package of that Hospital at the relevant time at Madras. It is a case where the respondents should have considered the application of the petitioner for post facto sanction for this operation at Apollo Hospital at Madras. It is not the rigidity of the rule or regulation or resolution or standing order which is to be the only consideration. The respondent –State of Gujarat is a Welfare State and its officers are the officers of a welfare State. Their approach should have been to see that where the Government servant puts a bonafide claim for reimbursement of his medical bill it should not be taken lightly and approach in such matters should have been justice oriented.”
In the aforesaid view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the stand taken by the respondents can be termed as high-handed and arbitrary. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to reimburse Rs.75,810=00 i.e. after adjusting Rs.70,000=00 which has already been sanctioned and paid to the petitioner with interest @ 9% from the date of the petition till the date of its realization. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
/moin (J.B.Pardiwala, J.)