- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Vide order dated 22.10.1993 (Annexure P-8), the Government refused to grant ex post facto approval of the treatment (heart surgery) of the petitioner from Escort Heart Institute, New Delhi (for short the 'Institute') and the bill of the petitioner for follow up treatment was returned in original vide Annexure P/9. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that reimbursement of medical claim of the Punjab Government employees and the pensioners is regulated under the Medical Attendance Rules, 1940 . Clause K of Rule 2 lays down free treatment and attendance by the government doctors only. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him for getting treatment from the Institute. It is further submitted that as the petitioner has not got prior approval of Director Health Services, Punjab, Chandigarh for his treatment outside the State, he is not entitled to the grant of the relief prayed for in view of the government instructions dated 25.1.1991.
(3.) It is not disputed that the Institute is recognised Institute of the Government of Punjab. Such a question arose for consideration in Sadhu R. Pall v. State of Punjab, 1994 1 SCT 552, wherein it was held : "In our considered view, once an Institute is recognised and it is decided that the State Government employees can take treatment from there, the State cannot be permitted to turn back and decline the reimbursement to its employees particularly in view of the urgency for treatment like heart problems. There is no reason nor any has been pointed out to restrict the right of the petitioner to get the best medical treatment available in the country from an Institute recognised by the State Government. Since provision of free medical treatment or reimbursement in lieu thereof is a beneficial act of the welfare State for its employees, the rules/instructions have to be construed liberally in favour of the employees, for granting them the relief, rather than adopting a woolen attitude to deprive a person of his due. The respondents appear to have patently used excusals in refusing full reimbursement, when the factum of treatment and the urgency for the same has been accepted by the respondents by reimbursing the petitioner the expenses incurred by him, which he would have incurred in the A.I.I.M.S., New Delhi. We cannot loose sight of factual situation in the A.I.I.M.S., New Delhi, i.e. with respect to the number of patients received there for heart problems. In such an urgency/one cannot sit at home and think in a cool and calm atmosphere for getting Medical treatment at a particular hospital or wait for admission in some Government Medi-Institute. In such a situation, decision has to be taken forthwith by the persons or his attendants if precious life has to be saved. xx xx xx xx xx We are of the considered view, by reading the instructions dated 8.10.1991 in pith and substance that the instructions do not authorise the respondents to refuse reimbursement as suggested by them. The instructions are meant for human beings and have to be read liberally and with an object to serve the purpose and the persons for whom they are meant. The defence taken by the respondents is nothing else but a frivolous defence which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The very act of the respondents is arbitrary and an attempt at defeating justice.";