Allowed

Kamla Prasad Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC13 Feb 2009CWJC/9515/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows the substituted heirs of a deceased employee to claim medical reimbursement for a life-saving kidney operation performed outside the state during his tenure, overriding the State's objection regarding lack of prior approval and directing the State to decide within four months.

What did the court decide?

The Court allowed the Interlocutory Application, substituted the deceased petitioner with his legal heirs, and directed the State to examine and decide the medical reimbursement claim within four mont

Kamla Prasad Singh Vs the State of Bihar and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2009)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
 CWJC No.9515 of 2002
 KAMLA PRASAD SINGH
 Versus
 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
 -----------

¶2

13.02.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

¶3

I.A. No. 7235 of 1008 has been filed by the heirs of the original petitioner who is stated to have been deceased during pendency of the application on 26.10.2008. The claim in the writ application is for re-imbursement of medical expenses incurred

¶4

by the petitioner during his service tenure. Since the matter has financial implications for the family of the deceased after hearing the Counsels for the parties this Court considers it proper to allow I.A. No. 7235 of 2008 and directs to substitute the original deceased petitioner with his legal heirs as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the Interlocutory Application.

¶5

The claim in the writ application is for re-imbursement of the medical expenses quantified at appropriately Rs. 4 lacs and odd in pursuance of the Kidney replacement operation undergone by the deceased at Chennai in 2000.

¶6

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted retrospective promotion on 26.3.2002 to the IPS Cadre with effect from 19.12.1996. The period of the operation would clearly fall within the portion of his tenure as a member of the IPS All India Cadre.

¶7

The counter affidavit of the respondents states that the petitioner proceeded for the operation out sides of the State

¶8

¶9

without approval of the Finance Department and therefore it was very difficult to ascertain the genuineness of the claim.

¶10

The medical facilities in the State ion the year 2000 were certainly wanting in so far as Kidney transplantation operations are concerned. It is not the case of the respondents that he could have had the operation in Bihar notwithstanding which he proceeded to Chennai. A Kidney transplantation operation is life saving operation where even time may be short. The Court therefore finds no substance in the objection of the State on this ground.

¶11

It is precisely to meet emergent situation like the present of life threatening treatments that Rule 26 of the Medical Attendance Rules was formulated which reads as under:-

¶12

“26. Power of Government to grant concession relating to medical attendance or treatment not authorized by the Rules- Nothing in these Rules shall be as preventing the State Government from granting to any person to whom they apply any concession relating to medical attendance or treatment which is not authorized by these Rules”.

¶13

Quite obviously in a life threatening situation there may be no time to await such permission which can easily be deemed under the aforesaid Rule.

¶14

In so far as genuineness of the claim is concerned, surely the State has enough resources and can easily make up its mind on the documentary evidence that may have been submitted before it. The petitioner relies upon the State Government letter dated 11.12.1999 at Annexure 3 series to submit that he was

¶15

¶16

entitled to full reimbursement as a member of the All India IPS cadre.

¶17

While holding that the grounds urged by the respondents of the petitioner having proceeded for treatment outside State without approval is untenable, this Court directs the respondents to examine the claim of medical reimbursement in accordance with law including letter dated 11.12.1999 and take a final decision as also pay the legitimate dues in pursuance thereof within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. If any part of

¶18

the claim has to be denied the respondents shall be obliged to pass a reasoned and speaking order

¶19

The writ application stands allowed.

¶20

Snkumar/-

¶21

(Navin Sinha,J.)

Kamla Prasad Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamla Prasad Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thithar Sada Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Om Prakash Sinha and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Raghubans Dubey Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Chhatradhari Sanskrit Prathmik Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Anni Verma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Archana Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.