Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sindhu Pradhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
Digitally
signed by
AMIT PATEL
Date:
2025.03.04
1
15:18:39
+0530
2025:CGHC:9633
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3732 of 2015
Smt. Sindhu Pradhan W/o Late Shyam Lal Pradhan, Aged About 54 Years R/o Rajeev
Vihar, Near Samudayik Bhawan, Rajkishor Nagar, Thana Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Home, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Superintendent of Police, Railway, G.R.P., Railway Station Chowk, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3.- Director (M.R.), Health Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New
Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondents/State
For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, counsel appears on behalf of Mr.
Utkal Pradhan, Advocate.
For Respondents/State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Government Advocate.
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order On Board
25.02.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India against the order dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure- P/1) passed by
respondent No. 3 pertaining to reimbursement of medical bills of petitioner’s
late husband has been withheld for compliance of two objections. So, this
petition is sought by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-
2
“i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kinldy be pleased
to quash impugned order dated 26.12.2009
(Annexure P/1) and direct the respondent
authorities to pass the medical reimbursement bill
amount Rs. 1,80,725.29/- and also pass the amount
about Rs. 1,94,496.26/- and Rs. 1,64,101.82/- with
interest.
ii. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit also is grant in favour of the petitioner.
iii. Cost of the petition.”
2. The facts of the case, as projected in the present writ petition, in brief, the
husband of the petitioner was working as a Head Constable, Government
Railway Police of Chhattisgarh State, posted at G.R.P., Thana- Bilaspur. The
husband of the petitioner expired on 14.01.2009 during the service tenure
because of some kidney ailment at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. Some medical
bills of husband of petitioner were submitted for reimbursement which were
received by Late Shri Shyam Lal Pradhan. Thereafter the medical bills were
submitted at Head Office, Raipur Superintendent of Police (Rly.) for
reimbursement. The medical bills were submitted in the proper format and
with all the necessary documentation. Few medical bills were passed by the
Health Director Department, Raipur which were received by late Shri Shyam
Lal Pradhan. However, after sometime respondent No. 3 raised some
objections (pertaining to medical bills amounting to Rs. 1,80,725.29/-) which
were not legal i.e., the objections raised were not at all supported by statutory
rules. The petitioner had also submitted medical bills amounting to Rs.
1,94,496.26/- and Rs. 1,64,101.82/- which has not been considered by
respondent No. 3. Despite the objections being not a legal necessity, the
petitioner cured the objections and sent the revised bills to respondent No. 2,
3
but again respondent No. 3 raised frivolous objections and sent the impugned
objections letter dated 26.12.2009(Annexure P/1). The respondent authorities
raised the objection that the medical bills are not in a proper format i.e., the
sign of the civil surgeon is not present and that the original slip of OPD is not
attached, whereas, the respondent authorities has failed to mention the rule
under which such requirement has been provided for reimbursement of
medical bills. On 04.01.2013 & 25.03.2015, the petitioner made a
representation to respondent No. 2 and No. 3 and requested to grant her
opportunity of personal hearing for explaining that the objection raised are not
legal objection, but respondent No. 2 till date has neither sent reply to the
petitioner(the medical bills to the respondent No. 3) for reimbursement nor has
given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is an aged
widow lady and from past so many years she is struggling to meet her ends as
the concerned respondent authorities are not paying any heed to her efforts of
claiming reimbursement. Hence, this present petition filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities for
arbitrary reasons are not clearing the pending medical bills of the petitioner’s
late husband, the respondent authorities raised the objection that the medical
bills are not in proper format i.e., the sign of the civil surgeon is neither
present and nor the original slip of OPD is attached, whereas the respondent
authorities have failed to mention the rule under which such requirement has
been provided for clearance of medical bills. He next submits that the
petitioner is a widow lady, some how, she is managing the livelihood of
herself and her children, the objection raised for the medical reimbursement is
causing her great hardship, as she made several efforts by moving from post to
pillar to get the medical bills reimbursed of her late husband, despite that her
efforts went in vain. Thus, she prays that respondent authorities may be
4
directed to quash the impugned order dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure P/1) and
also may be directed to respondent authorities to pass the medical
reimbursement bill amounting to Rs. 1,80,725.29/- and also pass the amount
about Rs. 1,94,496.26 and Rs. 1,64,101.82/- with interest. She places reliance
upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Shiva Kant Jha vs.
Union of India, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 187 and also the decision of this
Hon’ble Court in the matter of Sanjeev Kumar Thakur vs. State of
Chhattisgarh, passed in WPS No. 846 of 2021.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3/State strongly
opposes the above prayer as made by learned counsel for the petitioner and
submits that impugned order dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure P/1) issued by
respondent No. 3 is just and proper as the petitioner has not furnished the
medical reimbursement bill duly counter-sign by the District Civil Surgeon-
Cum-Hospital Superintendent on different heads, so also the petitioner had not
enclosed the original copy of the OPD slip. These objections were raised in
pursuance of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958
under the Rules 7 & 8 and as per said rules, application for reimbursement
shall be in Form- I and it shall be accompanied by an essentiality certificate in
Form- II duly signed by the authorized medical attendant. The drugs, which
are outside the priced vocabulary of the Medical Stores Depot, the essentiality
certificate in Form-II shall be counter-sign by the Civil Surgeon. A copy of
Form I & II is annexed as Annexure R-2. Learned counsel for the
respondents/State further submits that husband of the petitioner, who was
working as Head Constable in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of
Police (Railway), Raipur died on 14.01.2009 during his service tenure because
of kidney ailment at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur and the medical expenses were
borne by him and thereafter the medical bills were submitted at Head Office,
5
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Raipur (Railway) for reimbursement. The
petitioner claims that the medical bills were submitted in proper format and
with all necessary documentation. The petitioner submitted that few of his
medical bills were passed by the Health Director Department, Raipur, but in
some bills, it was pointed out that the bills were not supported by statutory
rules. Thereafter the medical bills submitted by the petitioner were not
considered by respondent No. 3/Director (M.R.), Health Department, District-
Raipur (C.G.). The impugned order dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure P/1) issued
by respondent No. 3 is just and proper as the petitioner has not furnished the
medical reimbursement bill duly counter-sign by the District Civil Surgeon-
cum-Hospital Superintendent on different heads, also the petitioner had not
enclosed the original copy of the OPD Slip and according to the provisions
prescribed under Rules 7 & 8, the impugned order passed by the competent
authority. Therefore, the instant petition being devoid of merit, liable to be
dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. It is not disputed in this case that husband of the petitioner was working as
Head Constable in the Police Department (Railway) and he was suffering
from kidney ailment and he died on 14.01.2009 during his service tenure at
Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. The petitioner, who is the wife of deceased
employee, had filed medical bills claiming for reimbursement, but vide
impugned order dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure P/1), the respondent authorities
demanded original OPD slip and counter-sign of Civil Surgeon.
7. This Court observed in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Thakur (supra)1, held in
paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17, which read as under:-
1 (2018) 16 SCC 187
6” 12. Rule 6(6) of the Rules of 2009 contemplates grant of permission by
Director General of Police for the treatment undergone by a Police
Officer/employee for his ailment outside the State on recommendation of
Civil Surgeon of concerned District in special circumstances with the
approval of Director, Medical Education within 15 days, and by necessary
application, the Director General of Police would have the same power and
jurisdiction to grant post-facto permission with the approval of Director,
Medical Education, even after the concerned Police Officer/employee has
already undergone treatment on account of an emergent situation without
being able to inform about the same to the Head of the Department. The
power of Director General of Police, as envisaged under Rule 6(6) of the
Rules of 2009, is not restricted only to grant permission prior to medical
treatment. Permission can be granted by the Director General of Police
after the treatment has been undergone by the concerned police officer in
special circumstances with approval of the Director, Medical Education
within the specified time.
13. In the matter of State of M.P. and Others v. M.P. Ojha and
Another2, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were dealing with M.P.
Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 and they have held that a
flexible approach has to be adopted in interpreting and applying these
Rules and they have further held that these rules have to be construed
liberally.
14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Consumer Education & Research
Centre and others v. Union of India and others 3 has held that right to health
and medical care to protect his health and vigour while in service or post-
retirement is a fundamental right of a worker under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, and observed as under :
“22. The expression ‘life’ assured in Article 21 of the Constitution
does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery
through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to
7livelihood, better standard of life, hygienic conditions in the
workplace and leisure. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn. 4
this Court held that no person can live without the means of living
i.e. means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated
as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of
depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his
means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation
would not only denude the life of its effective content of
meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live, leave aside
what makes life liveable. The right to life with human
dignity encompasses within its fold, some of the finer facets of
human civilisation which makes life worth living. The expanded
connotation of life would mean the tradition and cultural
heritage of the persons concerned. In State of H.P. v. Umed Ram
Sharma5 this Court held that the right to life includes the quality of
life as understood in its richness and fullness by the ambit of the
Constitution. Access to road was held to be an access to life itself in
that State.
25. Therefore, we hold that right to health, medical aid to protect
the health and vigour of a worker while in service or post-
retirement is a fundamental right under Article 21, read with
Articles 39(e), 41, 43, 48A and all related articles and fundamental
human rights to make the life of the workman meaningful and
purposeful with dignity of person.”
15. Likewise, in the matter of Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others 6, the
Supreme Court has held that self-preservation of one’s life is the necessary
concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, and observed as under :
“”11. It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self-preservation of one’s life
is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. The
importance and validity of the duty and right to self-preservation has a species in
the right of self-defence in criminal law. Centuries ago thinkers of this great land
conceived of such right and recognised it. Attention can usefully be drawn to
Verses 17 18, 20 and 22 in Chapter 16 of the Garuda Purana (A dialogue
suggested between the Divine and Garuda, the bird) in the words of the Divine:
17 Vinaa dehena kasyaapi canpurushaartho
na vidyate Tasmaaddeham dhanam
rakshetpunyakarmaani saadhayetWithout the body how can one obtain the objects of human life? Therefore
protecting the body which is the wealth, one should perform the deeds of merit.
818 Rakshayetsarvadaatmaanamaatmaa
sarvasya bhaajanam
Rakshane yatnamaatishthejje vanbhaadraani
pashyatiOne should protect his body which is responsible for everything. He who
protects himself by all efforts, will see many auspicious occasions in life.
20 Sharirarakshanopaayaah kriyante
sarvadaa budhaih
Necchanti cha punastyaagamapi
kushthaadiroginah
The wise always undertake the protective measures for the body. Even the persons
suffering from leprosy and other diseases do not wish to get rid of the body.
* * *
22 Aatmaiva yadi naatmaanamahitebhyo
nivaarayet
Konsyo hitakarastasmaadaatmaanam taarayishyati
If one does not prevent what is unpleasant to himself, who else will do it? Therefore
one should do what is good to himself.” ”
16. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of In Re : The Proper Treatment
of Covid 19 Patients and Dignified Handling f Dead Bodies in the Hospitals
etc.7 has held that right to health is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. Right to health includes affordable treatment.
17. In the matter of Suman Rakheja (Supra), it has been held by the Supreme
Court that in emergent cases, the concerned Government servant is entitled
for medical reimbursement for treatment in private hospital even though non-
recognized by the State Government. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the judgment
states as under :
“3. The appellant is the wife of a deceased government servant who had
undergone treatment in the Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, which was a private
hospital and which was not recognised/approved at that time. For the treatment
in that hospital the appellant incurred expenses to the tune of Rs 6,01,166 and the
appellant, by way of an application prayed for reimbursement of the medical
expenses incurred, but the same was declined by the State, on the ground that the
hospital wherein the appellant’s husband had undergone the treatment was not an
approved hospital.
9
4. Counsel for the appellant submitted that in similar case (Annexure P4) i.e. by
the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Sant Prakash v. State of
Haryana8wherein in an emergency case the patient had to be immediately
admitted in hospital, the relief has been granted. In the present case also the
appellant’s husband had to be rushed to the private hospital because he had
developed a paralytic stroke on the left side of the body, as there was blood
clotting on the right side of the brain and therefore, was admitted in an
emergency condition in the hospital. In the present case the discharge certificate
also shows that the case was an emergency one. In Sant Prakash Case the
Division Bench held that the petitioner would be entitled for 100% medical
expenses at the AIIMS rates and 75% of the expenditure in excess thereto.
5. In the result, in this appeal also, the appellant herein would be entitled to get
the refund of the amount of 100% medical expenses at the AIIMS rates and 75%
of the expenditure in excess thereto. ”
8. In the light of above judgment, in the present case also, it is not disputed that
husband of the petitioner was working in the Police Department (Railway) as
Head Constable and he died on 14.01.2009 during his service tenure because
of kidney ailment at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. Thus, in the present case also,
the provisions contained under the aforesaid rules which governs the
reimbursement of medical expenses borne by any police officer/State’s
employee, shall also be applied in this case as has been observed by this Court
in the matter of Sanjeev Kumar Thakur (supra) that Right to Health is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently,
the provisions relating to reimbursement of expense incurred on medical
treatment has to be flexible.
9. As such looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, in the light of the
above judgment, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated
26.12.2009 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the matter is sent to the
respondents No. 2 & 3/competent authority, who will process the case of the
petitioner and shall also consider and decide her claim for reimbursement in
accordance with law within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of
10
copy of this order.
10. As an upshot, the instant writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated
herein-above.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
AMIT PATEL
[ad_1]
Source link