Partly allowed

Rameshwar Gupta v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 May 2023CW/8602/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of medical reimbursement claims due to delayed filing. Noting the clear delay allowed the petitioner liberty to file a representation with the authority for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Liberty granted to petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority within one month for fresh consideration.

Rameshwar Gupta Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/O083251

¶2

{'l jXd BENCH[&~JAIPUR *s.e e,.:.;s,.ma

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 860212018

¶4

Rameshwar Gupta S/o Shri Prabhulal Gupta, R/o House No. 418, Behind Namkeen Bhandar Gumanpura, Kota.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Heatlh, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Director, Department Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare Rajasthan Rajasthan Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme, Jaipur

¶9

Treasurer, Treasury Office, Kota.

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanmay Dhand, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Choudhary for Mr. Rohit Choudhary, Dy.GC

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶12

Order

¶13

26/04/2023

¶14

Reserved On: 26/02/2023

¶15

Pronounced On: 4 /05/2023

¶16

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order(s) dated 26/12/2017 and 23/01/2018 passed by respondent No.-2 & 3 by way of which the claim of reimbursement of medical bills, as made by the petitioner, was rejected.

¶17

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was a Nurse Gr. 1, who retired on 30/05/1995. He is a pensioner. It was submitted that the wife of the petitioner had been suffering from progressive and intolerable pain in her knee joints. On 09/12/2013 and 11/09/2015, the petitioner along with

¶18

[2023/RJJP/008325]

¶19

[CW-8602/2018]

¶20

his wife, traveled to Baroda a Dheesh (Gujarat) to take care of some family obligations/undertakings. However, while in Gujar3t, the petitioner's wives medical impediment took a toll for the worse and she was unable to walk due to excruciating pain in her knees. Therefore, looking to her serious condition, the petitioner's wife was taken to Shalby Hospital in Ahmadabad, where it was discovered that she was suffering from Osteoarithritis. Accordingly, owing to the seriousness of the impediment and the resultant pain, she was admitted at Shalby Hospital and operated upon for knee replacement on 14.12.2013 and 17.09.2015. For the said treatment, a sum of Rs. 1,85,560/and Rs. 2,05,000/was incurred respectively. Thus, for reimbursement of the expenditure so incurred, the petitioner submitted cumulative bills to the tune of Rs. 3,90,560/- before the respondents.

¶21

However, much to the dismay of the petitioner, vide order(s) dated 26.12.2017 and 23.01.2018, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner, solely on account of the fact that the bills

¶22

' for reimbursement for medi-claim were submitted after the lapse of a period of two years, from the date of the treatment(s). As per the respondents, the said delay on part of the petitioner was against the mandate of Rule 26 of the Rajasthan State Medical Concession Scheme, 2009 and therefore, reimbursement could not be granted to the petitioner.

¶23

In this background, learned counsel for the respondent-State

¶24

. has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant writ petition, especially on the ground of delay and laches in filing of the present petition. To further strengthen their

¶25

[2023/RJJP/008325]

¶26

[CW-8602l20181

¶27

stand, learned counsel for thFbYespondents submitted that the respondent-Authorities are statutory bodies/creations, which are bound by the prescribed Rules and Regulations, as binding upon them. It was also submitted that it is not upon the respondentauthorities to take a deviated view from the Rules as formulated by the State, as they cover within their ambit the claims of all the State employees.

¶28

Upon hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and after analyzing the record of the case and studying the relevant provisions applicable, it is observed that the knee replacement operation(s) were conducted on 14/12/2013 and 17/09/2015, whereas the bills for reimbursement were submitted before the respondent-authorities on 18/12/2017 i.e. after a lapse of over 2 years from the date of the said operation(s). Hence, even on a cursory perusal of the above-stated chronological matrix, it is observed that a categoric case of delay and laches is made out and therefore, in light of Rule 26 of the Scheme of 2009, the rejection, on part of the respondents, for the claim submitted at a belated stage, seems duly justified.

¶29

However, learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of their rejoinder, has prayed for a liberty to file a representation before the respective competent authority for the consideration of their claim for reimbursement. 7. Looking to the fact that in their rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a liberty to file a representation before the respective competent authority, within a period of one month, along with their relevant submissions for due consideration before the respondent-authority and further considering the

¶30

[CW-8602/2018]

¶31

[2023/EUJP/OO8325]

¶32

?+<. 'ti

¶33

nature of the /is in question, tRfTi'court is inclined to dismiss the present writ petition, while simultaneously granting the aforesaid liberty, as prayed for, to the petitioner.

¶34

It is expected that the said representation shall be filed by the petitioner in a timely manner. Thereafter, the competentauthority shall duly dispose of the matter, in accordance with law, within a period of 60 days, from the date of filing of the representation.

¶35

Accordingly, in light of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶36

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶37

ANIL SHARMA I75

Rameshwar Gupta v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Gupta v. State of Raj 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

Smt. Rama Daughter of Ram Pyari Vs the State of Rajasthan

Chunni Lal Sharma S/O Shri Pura Sharma Vs Jaipur Development Authority

Abb India Limited, Vs Commercial Taxes Officer

Rajasthan Technical University Vs the Additional District and Seesions Judge No. 5

Rajasthan Technical University Vs the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 5

Natthey Khan Ors. Vs Satya Prakash and Anr.