State of Punjab v. Raj Pal Singh

IN T

State of Punjab

Rajpal Singh an

State of Punjab

Rajpal Singh an

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr for

Ms for SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The judgments and d below whereby allowed. Both th

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Da

Versus nd Another

RS

Da

Versus nd Another

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r.Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punj the appellant(s). s. Nishita Garg, Advocate and M the respondents. -.-

HARMA, J.

e State of Punjab has preferre decrees dated 26.08.2002 and 12 y the claim of the respondents he appeals are decided by comm

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-1623-2004 (O&M) ate of Decision :03.10.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents SA-1624-2004 (O&M) ate of Decision : 03.10.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA njab Mr. Adish Jain, Advocate ed two appeals against the sa

2.12.2003 passed by both the Cou s for medical reimbursement w on judgment.

ame urts

2.

Bri (Senior Division

ief facts of the case as mentioned n), Faridkot in suit for declaratio "The plaintiff Pyara Singh h defendants for declaration to to recover an amount of Ru imbursement of his medical diet, transport and attendan the rate of 24% per annum f till realisation with conse mandatory injunction direc payment of abovesaid amou interest at the rate of 24 submitting the medical bills The plaintiff has alleged th Punjab Govt. and was poste Agriculture Department at employee and he has retire (Afternoon). The plaintiff has from a very serious disease right side effusion, Fost M Stockes and Multi Cl.right alleged that he had to get

d before the Additional Civil Jud n are as under:- has filed the present suit against o the effect that plaintiff is entit upees four lacs on account of l bills and expenses for treatme t charges etc. alongwith interes from the date of submitting the equential relief in the shape cting the defendants to make unt of Rupees 4,00,000/- alongw 4% per annum from the date and other bills till its realisati hat he was working as Officer ed as Soil Testing Officer in Punj t Faridkot as regular perman ed from his service on 31-7-19 s further alleged that he is suffer e of Rheumatic Heart Disease a MVR infective Hepatitis, Right s side etc. The plaintiff has furt himself treated for the aboves

dge tled re-ent, t at bill of with of ion. r in njab nent ring side ther

diseases from expert Docto Delhi, for which he had to sp upon it and he has further a imbursement of the entire other expenses for treatme charges etc. incurred by him diseases at 'Ram Saran D Amritsar and at 'Escort Hea New Delhi and at Faridkot e that the expenses incurred b four lacs and for this purpos re-imbursement had been su Department and Annexure 'A the plaint. The plaintiff has been given ex-post facto Faridkot for his treatment treatment for the aforesaid i.e. before his retirement. Th defendants have not made t bills and other expenses w plaintiff is fully entitled and re-imbursement without any

ors/Institutions from Amritsar a spend more than Rupees Four L lleged that he is entitled for the amount of medical expenses a ent, diet, transport and attend m on his treatment for the afores Dass Charitable Trust Hospit art Institute and Research Cent etc. The plaintiff has further alleg by him have come to about Rup se the detailed medical bills for ubmitted to the Punjab Agricultu 'A' of the said bill is attached w s further alleged that he has a sanction by the Civil Surge t taken and the plaintiff got diseases during his service per he plaintiff has further alleged t the re-imbursement of the medi worth Rupees to lacs to which d the defendants have withheld y reasons. The plaintiff has furt

Lacs re-dant said tal', tre', ged pees ural with also eon, his riod that ical

3.

Fro

4.

The the learned trial and documents partly decreed a of Rs.1,12,784. institution of th Punjab and resp

26.08.2002. Th respondent was suit of the respo

alleged that he requested th make the re-imbursement o plaintiff through representat has further alleged that notic served upon the defendants imbursement of medical bills given rise to the cause of ac by the plaintiff/respondent." om the pleadings of the parties, f

¶1Whether the pla as prayed for?OPP.

¶2Relief." e reply was filed by the appella l Court after hearing both the pa on record partly allowed the sui and the respondent/plaintiff was 20p alongwith interest at the r he suit, till its realization. The pondents filed an appeal again he appellant/State challenged t not entitled to medical reimbu ondent whereas the respondent c

he defendants for so many times of medical bills submitted by tions but to no effect. The plain ce under section 80 C.P.C. was a s with a request to make the s, but it was of no effect, which ction. Therefore, civil suit was fi following issues were framed:- aintiff is entitled to the declarat ant-State of Punjab to the same a arties and considering the evide it of the respondent. Since suit w held entitled to recover the amo rate of 10 % per annum from erefore, both the appellant-State nst the judgment and decree da the decree on the ground that ursement and for dismissing of challenged the judgment and dec

s to ntiff also re-has filed tion nce was ount e of ated

dated 26.08.200 Faridkot before decreed in toto. against the State SUBMISSIONS

5.

Lea learned trial Cou reimbursement evidence on reco

6.

Per declaration has decrees passed concurrent findi be dismissed.

7.

I h record of this ca

8.

Rel Additional Distr

02 passed by the learned Additio the First Appellate Authority o The appeals were decided in fav e of Punjab. Hence the present a S OF THE COUNSELS FOR T arned counsel for the appellant urt has wrongly held the respond and both the Courts below hav ord in correct perspective. r contra learned counsel for the r rightly been decided and there i by the Courts below. He furt ings against the appellant/State, have heard learned counsel for ase. levant portion of the judgment rict Judge, Faridkot dated 12.12. "9. The only point argue appellant i.e. L.Rs of Piara S has held that the appellant amount of Rs.1,12,784-20 pa

onal Civil Judge (Senior Divisio on the ground that the suit was vour of the respondent/plaintiff appeals. THE PARTIES -State of Punjab contends that dent/plaintiff entitled to the medi ve not taken into consideration respondent submits that the suit s no infirmity in the judgments ther contends that since there therefore, the appeals are liable the parties and perused the wh and decree passed by the learn 2003 is reproduced hereunder: - ed by the learned counsel for Singh is that the learned trial co t-plaintiff is entitled to recover aise alongwith interest at the rate

on), not ical for are e to hole ned ourt an

Rs.10% per annum from the realization. It is argued that and the pleadings of the res that the predecessor-in-inter recovery of Rs. 4,00,000/- o medical bills, expenses fo attendant etc. alongwith inte It is argued that the defen statement in para No. 3 on m did not submit the bills of R that he has submitted the m Medical bills worth Rs.2,78, Surgeon, Faridkot and sen Welfare Punjab, Chandigarh learned trial court has only g medical bills worth Rs.2,78, court has not granted the argued that there is no ev defendants that as to why th sanctioned for payment to t in-interest. It is further argu of appellant have placed on

e date of institution of the suit from the evidence available on f spondents-defendants, it is evid rest of appellant filed the suit for on account of reimbursement of or treatment diet, transport a erest at the rate of 24% per annu ndants-respondents in the writ merits has pleaded that the plain Rs.4,00,000/-. It is further plead medical bills of Rs.3, 20,019/-on

339.22 paise were verified by C nt to Director, Health & Fam h for scrutiny. It is argued that granted the relief with regard to ,399-22 paise but the learned tr relief of Rs.3,20,019/-. It is a vidence on behalf of responden he remaining amount has not b the appellant or their predecess ued that the predecessor-in-inter n record the details of the claim

till file dent f his um. tten ntiff ded nly. Civil mily rial also nts-een sor-rest

medical bills which is Ex.P9 regard to the expenses spen and if the amount of these calculated then it comes to been given by the learned t Piara Singh has been reje amount from Rs.3,20,019/- a 22 paise. It is pointed ou examined (PW5) Dalip S Departmental witness and given the details of the b deceased for medical reimb Senior Manager Finance Es Centre Delhi has proved d further pointed out that resp Preet Mohinder Singh, Chief this witness has also admitt medical bills amounting to Piara Singh deceased and o paise was attested by Civil S this witness has not given a remaining amount has not

¶97Item No.1 to item No.8 are w nt on the treatment of Piara Sin e items from serial No.1 to 8 o Rs.3,20,019/- and no reason trial court as to why the claim ected with regard to the bala and has been adjudged Rs.2,78,3 ut that the appellant-plaintiff Singh. Senior Assistant who this witness has also specifica bills received from Piara Sin bursement. PW.2 Vijender Gog scort Heart Institution & Resea documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P85. It pondents-defendants have examin ef Agricultural Officer as DW1 a ted in his examination-in-chief t Rs.3,20,019/- were received fr out of which bill for Rs.2,78,339 Surgeon, Faridkot. It is argued t any reason as to why the bill t been passed. This witness

with ngh are has m of nce 339-has is ally ngh gna arch It is ned that rom 9-22 that for

further stated that the sancti were received from Dir Chandigarh and another sa received from the Director Ex.D3 and the payment of made to Piara Singh dece learned trial court has not a on file and has not granted So, the findings of the learne to be set aside and the appel of Rs.3,20,019/-.

¶10It is further argued granted interest from the d realization and that too at th argued that the appellant is e of submission of the bills till annum. It is argued that the reimbursement of amount because the patient cannot because failed to obtain certi learned counsel for the app

ion for an amount of Rs.1,46,99 rector Health Service, Punj anction for Rs.18,558/- were a r Health Services vide Ex.D1 f the amount of Rs.1,65,555/- w eased. It is thus, argued that appreciated the evidence availa the relief of the remaining amou ed trial court to this effect are lia llant-plaintiff is entitled to the re that the learned trial Court date of institution of the suit he rate of Rs.10/-% per annum. I entitled to the interest from the d l realization at the rate of 24% p e Hon'ble High Court has held t of treatment cannot be declin be deprived of his re-imbursem ificate. In support of his contenti ppellant has relied upon 1999

97/- jab, also to was able unt. able elief has till It is date per that ned ment ion,

(4)

RSJ634 Smt.SudershanVers wherein it was held as under

"Constitution o Medical reimbursement-Hus ailment of renal failure-Ex referred to AIIMS for treatm there-AIIMS referred him paucity of the space in AII patient got treatment from Si Reimbursement of the amoun that Sir Ganga Ram Hos institution of State of Haryan obtain no objection certifica give treatment to the patient-re-imbursement-The respond of the bills submitted by the p

It is argued that the Court has granted interest support of his contention, lea relied upon 1995(2) Recent S Cheema Versus State of Punj

us State of Haryana and oth r:- of India, Articles 226 and 2 sband of petitioner suffering fr Examined at PGI, MS Rohtak a ent as dialysis facility not availa to some other centre in view IIMS for regular dial dialysis-T ir Ganga Ram Hospital New De nt of treatment declined-Plea ta spital not a recognised medi na. The State require the patien ate from AIIMS and its liability -It cannot deprive the patient of dents directed to make the paym petitioner or her husband." Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana H at the rate of 12% per annum. arned counsel for the appellant Services Judgments 307 Tara Sin jab wherein it was held as under

hers 227-rom able w of The elhi-ken ical t to y to f his ment High . In has ngh r:-

"Constitution of Ind (Medical Attendance) R reimbursement-Claim not d issued to reimburse the amou

¶11On the other hand, le respondent-Punjab State has has erred in decreeing th granting the appellant the Rs.1,65,555/- which was san Family Welfare Punjab, Ch Singh was not entitled to th which has been paid to him. passing the decree for the r all and for balance amou argued that the appellant wa which has already been awa Govt. It is further argued th awarded interest at the rate on the higher side and the interest because there is Government. As and when th payment has been made to t

dia, Article 14-Punjab Servi Rules 1940, Rule 7-Medi decided for 13 years-Directi unt with Compound interest 12% earned Govt. Pleader on behalf s argued that the learned trial co he suit of the appellant-plain amount more than the amount nctioned by the Director Health a handigarh. It is argued that Pi the amount more than the amo The learned trial court has erred recovery of Rs.2,78,339-20 paise nt of Rs.1,12,784-20 paise. It as not entitled to any other amo arded or sanctioned by the Punj hat the learned trial court has a of Rs.10% per annum which is a e appellant is not entitled to no delay on the part of he Sanction has been received, the appellant. It is thus argued t

ices ical ions %." f of ourt ntiff t of iara ount d in e in t is ount njab also also

the findings of the learned liable to be set aside.

¶12I have considered the of both the parties and have file. Admittedly, deceased P imbursement bills amounting Punjab Govt. has sanction approved by the Director H Chandigarh and another bil said amount of the bills. In passed the bill for Rs.1,65,5 Piara Singh deceased for Rs. of the learned Govt. Pleade submitted the bills claimin staying in Delhi and tran Amritsar and back from Am Ex.P97 from serial No.9 to given by the Punjab State or the claim of Piara Singh dec amount of Rs.3,20,019/- Rs.3,20,019/- is shown as sp item from serial No.1 to se

trial court on this issue are a above submissions made on beh also gone through the evidence Piara Singh had submitted the g to Rs.3,20,019/-. The responde ned the bill for Rs.1,46,997/- Health and Family Welfare Punj ll for Rs.18,558/- out of the ab n all, the Punjab Government 555/- out of the bills submitted .3,20,019/-. However, the argum er is tenable that Piara Singh ng the expenses of attendant nsport charges from Faridkot mritsar to Faridkot as mentioned serial No.13. No reason has b r any of the witnesses that as to w ceased has been decreased from to Rs.165555/-. The amount pent on treatment in Ex.P97 in erial No.8. Learned trial court

also half e on re-ent-as jab, ove has d by ment has for to d in een why of

held that the plaintiff has pu to the rates as stated in the record and admitted by the r purchased. It is also observe respondents-defendants have how they have reduced the proved, by the appellant-pla not calculated the amount o No.8 shown in Ex.P9 which c the amount as Rs.2,78,339/ calculating this amount. The purchase of medicines is sho Ex.P17, Ex.P22 to Ex.P26 Ex.P18, Ex.P29, Ex.P31, E Ex.P41, Ex.P43, Ex.P45, E Ex.P55, Ex P57, Ex.P59, Ex been authenticated by the Ex.P20, Ex.P32, Ex.P34, E Ex.P42, Ex.P44 Ex.P48, E Ex.P58, Ex.P62 and Ex.P64 Manager, Ram Saran Das Hospital Amritsar has prove

urchased these medicines accord e bills and it is also established respondents that the medicines w ed by the learned trial court that e not been able to show that as rates and amount of the bills d aintiff. The learned trial court of item from serial No.1 to ser comes to Rs.3,20,019/-. It has ta /-. There is a clerical mistake e actual amount for these items own in the bills Ex.P10 to Ex.P and the bills proved by PW2 Ex.P33, Ex.P35, Ex.P37, Ex.P Ex.P47, Ex.P49, Ex.P51, Ex.P x.P61 and Ex.P63. These bills h hospital vide documents Ex.P Ex.P28, Ex. P36, Ex.P38, Ex.P Ex.P50, Ex.P52, Ex.P54, Ex.P

¶4Similarly, PW 3 Gardyal Me ss Koshori Lal Charitable Tr ed the receipts and bills Ex.P66

ding d on were s to duly has rial ken e in for P15, are P39, P53, ave P19, P40, P56, ehta rust 6 to

Ex.P79 and also Ex.P80 to E proved. The respondents-d shown as to how the a Rs.3,00,019/- toRs.1,65,555/ this amount was reduced or claimed. No evidence has Respondents that any exce appellant or that any such which was not reimbursable claimed by the plaintiff as were not be granted to the p serial No.9 to serial No.13 in appellant is entitled to recov not only Rs.1,65,555/- which State-respondents or held Rs.2,78,339/-. I, therefore, h trial court on this issue are t appellant is entitled to the entitled to recover an amo amount of Rs.1,65,555/- has re-imbursement of medical b as making the total of reimbu

Ex.P82. Thus all the bills have b defendants Punjab State has amount has been reduced fr /-. It has not been shown as to w r that any excess amount has b been led by the Punjab Sta ess amount was claimed by item has been claimed in the e. Only the amount which has b expenses for stay of the attend plaintiff and these are mentioned n Ex.P97. I, therefore, hold that ver an amount of Rs.3,20,019/- a h has been awarded by the Punj by the trial court to the tune hold that the findings of the learn to be set aside to this effect and declaration that the appellan ount of Rs.1,34,664/- because s already been paid on accoun bills and treatment of Piara Sin ursement of Rs.3,20,019/- in all.

een not rom why een ate-bill een dant d at njab e of ned t is t of ngh,

¶13However, I find no me counsel for the appellant interest from the date of su bills are to be scrutinized an the Director Health and Fam The reasonable timehas Moreover the court is to gi suit. The rate of interest is interest of the Banks was on court has rightly held that interest at the rate of Rs.1 institution of the suit till rea this issue, the findings of the

¶14No other point has be arguments.

¶15In view of my above d by L.Rs of Piara Singh (who and he is held entitled to re because the amount of Rs.1 account of reimbursement o Piara Singh deceased. Howe fails and the same is hereby

erit in the argument of the learn that the appellant is entitled ubmissions of the bills because nd the sanction is to be accorded mily Welfare, Punjab, Chandiga been taken by the departme ive interest from date of filing also adequate. Earlier the rate n the higher side. The learned tr t the appellant is entitled to 10% per annum from the date alization. With this modification learned trial court are affirmed een raised before me at the time detailed discussion, the appeal fi o is now deceased) stands accep ecover an amount of Rs.1,34,46 16,555/- has already been paid of medical bills and treatment ever, the appeal filed Punjab St y dismissed. The parties are lef

ned d to d by arh. ent. e of rial e of n on d. e of filed pted 64/- d on t of tate

CONCLUSION

9.

A p both the Courts consideration by appeal. Docume

10.

Con decrees dated 2 both the appeals

11.

Dec

12.

Pen

October 3, 2024 A.Kaundal

Whether s

Whether r

bear their own costs in bo prepared separately in bo judgment be placed on the Piara Singh. Lower court r consigned to the record room N:- perusal of the record as well as below show that each and every y both the Courts below while d entary proof placed on record spe nsequently, I do not find any

26.08.2002 and 12.12.2003 pass s are dismissed being devoid of a cree sheet be drawn accordingly nding applications, if any, also st

(SU

speaking/non-speaking : Speakin reportable

: Yes/No

oth the appeals. Decree sheets oth the appeals. A copy of appeal file titled Punjab State record be returned. Appeal file m." s judgments and decrees passed y bill/document has been taken i deciding the civil suit as well as eaks in favour of the respondent. y infirmity in the judgments sed by both the Courts below any merit. y. tand disposed of. UDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ng

be this Vs. e be d by into .