State of Haryana and others vs Ranbir Singh

A.N. Jindal, J.—This regular second appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 13.12.2012 passed by the District Judge, Jind whereby the judgment passed by the trial court was reversed and the appellants were directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment within two months from the date of passing of the judgment. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was further awarded as compensation towards his harassment and costs of filing two writ petitions and serving two legal notices and litigation expenses. The appeal has been preferred on the limited issue of interest which is as under :-

Whether the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment of the medical reimbursement in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case Om Prakash Gargi Vs. State of Punjab and Others, ?

The factual background of the case is that the plaintiff was a primary school teacher in Education Department, Haryana. On 26.5.2002, he suffered a severe heart attack, for the treatment of which, he was immediately shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where he was operated upon in their Metro Golden Heart Institute, Delhi on the morning of 27.5.2002. For this treatment, he had spent Rs. 1,79,266.06 P. Thus, he submitted bills for reimbursement for the amount spent in the hospital as well as the medicines at Jaipur Golden Hospital, but he was paid only Rs. 68,257/- that too under the orders of this Court which were received by him on 28.10.2005. Thereafter, Rs. 16000/- were further reimbursed to the petitioner on re-calculations. Again a sum of Rs. 19000/- were sanctioned against Rs. 35,000/-. He has further submitted that though this amount was sanctioned on 7.1.2004 vide Directorate memo No. 6/89-2002 ET - II(4) but this amount was paid to him on 22.12.2005 that too without any explanation for the delay. He has thus stated that the remaining sum of Rs. 85,900/- is outstanding which is still to be reimbursed. In nutshell, he has stated that the plaintiff has been paid a sum of Rs. 1,06,057/- against his entitlement of Rs. 1,73,561/- up till 28.1.2008 and he is entitled to the remaining amount.

The suit was contested. After a long contest, the trial court vide judgment dated 16.2.2010 dismissed the suit. However, in appeal, the District Judge, Jind, vide judgment dated 18.3.2011 though observed that the respondent has been paid the entire amount, yet, he has not been paid interest despite that he has been harassed and humiliated to the great extent. The trial court accordingly observed that the plaintiff was operated upon on 27.5.2002 but the initial payment was made on 28.10.2005 i.e. after three years. Then a sum of Rs. 16,000/- was paid to him on 22.12.2005 and thereafter a sum of Rs. 21,800/- was paid on 28.1.2008 and Rs. 45,000/- were paid during the pendency of the appeal in the year 2011. Thus, the court awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of submission of the bills in July, 2002 or w.e.f. 1.9.2002 till 28.10.2005 on payment of Rs. 68,257/- and on Rs. 16000/- from 1.9.2002 to 28.1.2008 and on Rs. 45,000/- paid during the pendency of the appeal from 1.9.2002 to 4.10.2011. Since the petitioner had undergone litigation by filing two writ petitions, serving two legal notices, therefore, he was awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in lump sum as compensation towards his harassment and costs of litigation.

Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the State has come, up in this regular second appeal.

The amount of medical reimbursement is the constitutional obligation towards the sufferer government employee. It is in accordance with rules that the government employee shall be entitled to free charge treatment in the Government or recognized/approved hospital or if the treatment is not available in any of such hospitals, then the hospital where the facility is available. The provisions of free medical treatment or reimbursement in lieu thereof is a beneficial legislation in the welfare state for its employees, therefore, the rules and instructions formulated should be construed liberally in favour of the employee for granting them the relief, rather than to adopt the wooden attitude to deprive a person of his dues. Similar observations were made in case Sadhu Pal v. State of Punjab, (CWP No. 3493 of 1962, decided on 6.10.1993). The Division Bench of this Court, in Sadhu Pal''s case (supra) further observed that it would be in the ends of justice by directing the respondents to reimburse the petitioner the amount incurred on his treatment in the Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi with 12% compound interest from the date of amount became due till its payment.

The Allahabad High Court in case Raghavendra Lal Srivastava v. Principal Secy. (Education), Govt. of U.P., 2000 (3) S.C.T. 942 while observing that delay in payment is due to the conduct of the employees of the respondent''s office. The papers were received in the year 1993 in the Director''s Office but no action was taken for six years. The employees no doubt were suspended, but this does not redress the grievance of the petitioner. He has to be compensated for this delay. In any case once the Director of Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Lucknow approved this amount in 1995, it was the responsibility of the authorities to ensure its payment. In my opinion ends of justice would be served if an interest of 12% per annum is awarded to the petitioner from the date the Additional Director (Chikitsa Upchar), Lucknow recommended the amount of medical reimbursement.

The Delhi High Court in case Kishan Chand v. Govt. of N.C.T. and others 2010 (169) DLT 32 observed that under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the State has a constitutional obligation to bear the medical expenses of Government employees while in service and also after they are retired. Clearly in the present case, by taking a very inhuman approach, these officials have denied the grant of medical reimbursement to the petitioner forcing him to approach this Court. The respondents did not bother even after the judgment of this Court was brought to their notice and copy of the same was placed by the petitioner along with the present petition. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court ordered the State to pay interest @ 18% per annum from the date of submission of the bills.

The Madras High Court in case A. Arul v. State of Tamil Nadu 2009 LIC 2941 had awarded interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment. The Apex Court while discouraging the observations made at some places that the medical reimbursement was a concession observed in case State of Punjab and others v. Mohinder Singh Chawla and others, AIR 1996 SC 2426 that it is now well settled law that right to health is integral to the right to life. Government has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities. If the Government servant has suffered an ailment which requires treatment at a specialized approved hospital and on reference whereat the Government servant had undergone such treatment therein, it is but the duty of the State to bear the expenditure incurred by the Government servant. Expenditure, thus, incurred requires to be reimbursed by the State to the employee as per the policy rules which apply to such government apply. It was apprised that as per latest policy, if an employee gets medical treatment from a government hospital, then the entire payment has to be borne by the government. In case of approved hospitals, the expenses as per rates of PGIMER or AIIMS and 75% of the other expenses if he has been referred to such treatment.

Thus, medical reimbursement is neither a bounty nor a concession to be awarded to be government employee for his medical treatment, but it is a constitutional obligation of the government to bear the expenses. If the employee is at fault in submitting the bills or the bills could not be processed for some reasons attributable to the government employee, then he could be denied the relief of interest but when the government employee has submitted the bills and the employees dealing with such bills, for the reasons best known to them, delay the payment and ultimately, the payment is made then why the government employee should not be compensated for the delay caused in payment. Lest payment of bills bring dual sufferings to the government employee. First, that he after spending money, which he may have taken as loan or otherwise suffers on account of interest which he pays to the borrower, he continues giving rounds of the office spends over his transport and waiting for payment and secondly, he is not paid that much amount which he spent, some hidden charges are not paid and some times the bills of the private hospital are not honoured and he is paid at the rate of government hospitals or to some extent if he gets treatment from the approved hospitals. No doubt, a reasonable period could be taken into consideration for non payment of interest. The period which the office would have taken to process the papers and seeking approval but inordinate and long delay in making payment could not be condoned which occurs, purely for the fault on the part of the government machinery. As regards the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Om Prakash Gargi Vs. State of Punjab and Others, their Lordships did not lay down the abstract and absolute rule that no payment could be made for the delayed payment, but it only observed that some time could be spent on verification of amounts spent by the petitioner, as such the petitioner was not entitled to receive payment on interest for the said period. That period at the most, could be treated as three months. It is extremely a hardship for a person to wait for months and years to receive amount of expenses incurred by him for his treatment and he is forced to enter into long correspondence, making representations, time and again making rounds of the office for seeking his right, therefore, certainly after a reasonable period of three months which the office could spend for completion of formalities, it would be just and expedient to direct payment of interest on the amount. In the similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in case Waryam Singh Vs. State of Punjab, awarded interest @ 15% per annum from the date of expiry of three months. In the instant case, the appellate court has not awarded interest @ 15% per annum, but in all its reasonability, it only awarded interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment, after deducting the period of three months, which appears to be quite reasonable.

No substantial question of law arises for determination.

Dismissed.