Suryakant, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who appeared in person, retired on 31/1/1988 from the post of Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Punjab. The petitioner had to undergo bye-pass surgery in April 1991 at AIIMS, New Delhi and thereafter has been getting follow-up treatment regularly from FORTIS, a government recognized Institute at Mohali. The petitioner submitted his medical bills on 27.9.2001 for reimbursement of the expenses incurred on Angiography and/or post operational treatment. According to the petitioner, though his claims are squarely covered by one or the other judgment of this Court, however, only part-reimbursement has been made and most of the expenses incurred by him as an "outdoor patient" have been refused to be reimbursed. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has been filed, in which it is stated that an amount of Rs.9,442/-, which the petitioner spent as an indoor patient, has already been reimbursed, however, the expenses to the tune of Rs.5363/- claimed by him on "outdoor treatment" cannot be reimbursed as per the government policy. Two additional affidavits, dated 3.2.2005 and 24.5.2005, have also been filed on behalf of the respondents. In para 2 of the affidavit, dated 24.5.2005, it is averred that the monthly treatment expenditure incurred by the petitioner cannot be reimbursed in view of the Punjab Govt. letter dated 31.12.1997 whereby the system of reimbursement of 'outdoor' medical treatment has been discontinued. The issue as to whether or not the expenditure incurred by a government employee/retiree on 'outdoor treatment' is also liable to be reimbursed, is no longer res-integra. In Letters Patent Appeal No.445 of 1999 (State of Punjab v. Dr. Hardev Singh), decided on February 14, 2006, a Division Bench of this Court (to which I am a Member) held as follows:- "[8]. Learned State Counsel fairly concedes that after issuance of the above stated instructions, dated 1.9.2000 and 21.7.2004, the expenditure incurred by a govt. employee/retiree on 'outdoor treatment' is also being reimbursed by the State Govt. He, however, contends that the aforesaid instructions are prospective in nature and are inapplicable insofar as the present case is concerned. [9]. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the Bar, and while concurring with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that no exception can be made to the said view as the distinction sought to be drawn by the State Govt. between 'outdoor treatment' and 'indoor treatment' for the purposes of reimbursement in terms of its own policy, does not appear to be founded upon any intelligible criteria. Our view is also strengthened by the subsequent government policy decisions, dated September 1, 2000 and July 21, 2004, taken by the appellant-State itself, in terms whereof it has extended the benefit of reimbursement in the cases of chronic diseases irrespective of the treatment being 'outdoor or 'indoor'...."
(3.) It has, thus, been the stand of the respondents themselves that after issuance of the instructions, dated 1.9.2000 and 21.7.2004, the expenditure incurred on 'outdoor treatment' is also reimbursable subject, however, to other conditions contained in those instructions. The stand taken by the respondents in their reply and/or the additional affidavits as referred to above, is thus contrary to their own instructions as well as the view taken by this Court, unless the respondents come up with the plea that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the purview of instructions, dated 1.9.2000, or the subsequent policy.;